What a clusterfuck. If Iraq goes (further) into the shitter, it will not be good for Obama. Story: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2017309274_iraq23.html (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2017309274_iraq23.html)
QuoteBAGHDAD — Faster than anyone expected — barely a month after the last U.S. troops left — Iraq's government appears to be coming apart, prompting fears that the country is headed for another round of sectarian strife.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite Muslim, is driving to consolidate control and sideline more secular politicians in a battle that increasingly appears to be a fight to the finish in which there can be no compromise.
Barham Salih, the widely admired prime minister of the autonomous Kurdish region in the north, said the infighting is "tearing the country apart."
Pre-emption is the name of the game.
"The motto is: 'I'll have him for lunch before they have me for dinner,' " he said.
The downhill spiral takes a new turn every week, sometimes daily. Responding to a boycott by his Sunni partners in the power-sharing government, al-Maliki last week locked them out of their jobs, ordering ministries to bar their doors to Cabinet officers, even though they still have a mandate from the Iraqi parliament.
A day later, the Iraqiya bloc headed by secular Shiite Ayad Allawi, which has 94 seats in the 325-seat parliament, said that if al-Maliki did not agree to curbs on his power, he should be replaced, either in new elections or by a vote of al-Maliki's Shiite backers in parliament.
Iraqi politics today is a constellation of clashes, many in plain view but others below the surface. "It's just one-fifth of the iceberg that we are seeing," said Tahseen Shekhli, an adviser to the prime minister. "The more dangerous disputes are still hidden."
The country's vice-president, a Sunni, fled last month to Kurdistan, where he's safe from Iraqi justice authorities seeking his arrest on allegations that he directed hit squads against prominent Shiites. Al-Maliki has attempted to oust the deputy prime minister, also a Sunni, but Sunni and Kurdish legislators refuse to hold a vote, paralyzing the Parliament.
Al-Maliki has sent troops and tanks into the streets of the Green Zone, where most prominent politicians live, and warned top leaders that he is keeping "files" on them.
Allawi, who has been a no-show at Parliament and seems to be abroad more often than in Iraq, says al-Maliki has arrested more than 1,000 political opponents on the pretext of preventing a coup by members and supporters of the Baath party of ousted dictator Saddam Hussein.
All is not well within al-Maliki's bloc, either, which is able to control the Parliament with 159 votes.
Supporters of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who hold 40 of those seats, abstained in protest when they were asked to remove Sunni ministers from their jobs, and they're outraged by al-Maliki's courting of Shiite extremists who are rivals to the Sadrists.
In the midst of the political squabbling, insurgents, possibly al-Qaida, have carried out attacks, killing at least 250 civilians in Baghdad and other cities since U.S. forces left, giving the country a security scare.
The international rights groups Human Rights Watch said Sunday in the Iraq chapter of its annual report that the government cracked down harshly on dissent during the past year of Arab Spring uprisings, turning the country into a "budding police state" as autocratic regimes crumbled elsewhere in the region.
With no military forces on the ground, the U.S.' leverage is meager.
President Obama may have made things worse last month when he hosted al-Maliki in Washington and hailed him as the leader of "Iraq's most inclusive government yet."
"Iraqis are working to build institutions that are efficient and independent and transparent," Obama said.
The speech enraged Saleh Mutlak, a Sunni who is a deputy prime minister.
"What I heard from Obama was deceiving both for Americans and Iraqis," Mutlak said. "Obama is telling Americans that they were victorious in Iraq, they liberated the country and Iraqis are now very well situated, and the hero of Iraq, the prime minister, has made an inclusive government in Iraq. But it is the opposite."
So he gave an interview to CNN in which he denounced al-Maliki as a "dictator."
"I wanted to let Mr. Obama know that what he's telling his own people is not correct. And I wanted to tell my people that I have waited enough, and it's time to tell the truth of what's going on inside the government. If al-Maliki stays in power, dictatorship will be more concentrated."
A week later, in an interview with the BBC, Mutlak compared al-Maliki unfavorably with Saddam. "Saddam brought a lot of things to Iraq, like construction and roads and other sorts of things, whereas al-Maliki doesn't seem to be able to bring about such reforms to the country."
Mutlak's comments angered al-Maliki, who announced that he would depose Mutlak and sent a request to Parliament to oust him from his position. But Kurds refused to take part in the vote and together with Sunni delegates deprived the Parliament of a quorum.
Mutlak defends his comparison of al-Maliki and Saddam. "Show me a single building which is being built by Maliki. His office, his home, the Parliament, everything was built by Saddam," he said in Irbil.
Mutlak said al-Maliki showed his sectarian colors a month before the Washington trip by refusing to address the issue of ethnic and sectarian imbalance in the general staff of the Iraqi military. Mutlak said an all-party study commission had concluded that under al-Maliki, 86 percent of the military's top command posts were filled by Shiites and 14 percent by members of all other sects and nationalities, well more than the 60 to 65 percent that Shiites represent in the population.
Mutlak said al-Maliki's response was "I don't believe in that," meaning striving for ethnic and sectarian balance. Mutlak also blasted al-Maliki for not consulting with his Cabinet before departing for the meeting with Obama and for not bringing any member of the Iraqiya bloc and only one non-Shiite to Washington.
"It means this was a personal meeting, between the Dawa party [of al-Maliki] and the Americans," Mutlak said.
Shekhli, the government adviser, said, "If you make all the people a part of a decision, it will be weak. At the end, they chose him as prime minister, and they must accept his decisions."
As for labeling al-Maliki a dictator, he said: "There is no dictatorship here that will last here forever, as Saddam Hussein, or in other Arab countries," he said. "At the end, there will be voting every four years. The people can change the government through the ballot box."
Who would have tought.
And we are going to be blamed for this by everybody :yuk:
Empirin' ain't easy.
Quote from: Valmy on January 23, 2012, 10:35:33 AM
And we are going to be blamed for this by everybody :yuk:
Empirin' ain't easy.
Yeah, what did you do expect Leeroy Jenkins-ing into a very complex and fragile country without a single plan on how to actually run it after the Mission Accomplished photo opportunity was had?
Hopefully that's not true, at least not for another year.
Quote from: Tamas on January 23, 2012, 10:37:13 AM
Yeah, what did you do expect Leeroy Jenkins-ing into a very complex and fragile country without a single plan on how to actually run it after the Mission Accomplished photo opportunity was had?
We had a plan.
1. Overthrow Saddam
2. Liberty and Democracy breaks out
I was sure Bush and Blair were just saying that for public consumption and did, in fact, have a plan but in retrospect it does not look like it.
Thing is, I don't think many people care in the US. Neither Democrats or Republicans really like the Iraqis that much.
I can't believe that daddy Bush stayed out of that mess. What a retard.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 23, 2012, 10:59:44 AM
Thing is, I don't think many people care in the US. Neither Democrats or Republicans really like the Iraqis that much.
No we are pretty tired of the whole thing.
Quote from: Valmy on January 23, 2012, 11:09:32 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 23, 2012, 10:59:44 AM
Thing is, I don't think many people care in the US. Neither Democrats or Republicans really like the Iraqis that much.
No we are pretty tired of the whole thing.
We did what we could. The rest is (mostly) on them.
:lmfao:
Quote from: Berkut on January 23, 2012, 11:59:14 AM
We did what we could. The rest is (mostly) on them.
Yeah that is how I would hope people see it, or they just recognize Iraq was never going to work as a country.
I'm not sure they properly appreciate the whole "Kill a bunch of you, so the survivors can have a better life", thing.
We need to re-invade with four times as many troops. It will help solve the unemployment problem as well as make the world safe for democracy.
Quote from: Phillip V on January 23, 2012, 12:04:03 PM
We need to re-invade with four times as many troops. It will help solve the unemployment problem as well as make the world safe for democracy.
At least on the contractor side of the house.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 23, 2012, 12:05:07 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on January 23, 2012, 12:04:03 PM
We need to re-invade with four times as many troops. It will help solve the unemployment problem as well as make the world safe for democracy.
At least on the contractor side of the house.
Which is where I plan to be in a year. Recently got my Top Secret clearance. :)
Quote from: Valmy on January 23, 2012, 12:01:15 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 23, 2012, 11:59:14 AM
We did what we could. The rest is (mostly) on them.
Yeah that is how I would hope people see it, or they just recognize Iraq was never going to work as a country.
whithout a strong man. if only there was a strong man that could keep them together...
:p
Quote from: Valmy on January 23, 2012, 12:01:15 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 23, 2012, 11:59:14 AM
We did what we could. The rest is (mostly) on them.
Yeah that is how I would hope people see it, or they just recognize Iraq was never going to work as a country.
We failed. I agree that you did what you could from around 2006, but for the first 3 years of the occupation we failed and I think that was the period when there was most chance of success or worst consequences for failure.
I get the feeling that I'm about to see a train wreck. I dont know why.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 23, 2012, 12:11:38 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 23, 2012, 12:01:15 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 23, 2012, 11:59:14 AM
We did what we could. The rest is (mostly) on them.
Yeah that is how I would hope people see it, or they just recognize Iraq was never going to work as a country.
We failed. I agree that you did what you could from around 2006, but for the first 3 years of the occupation we failed and I think that was the period when there was most chance of success or worst consequences for failure.
Is it 10 years in Afghanistan, yet? :lol:
Quote from: Kleves on January 23, 2012, 10:30:34 AM
What a clusterfuck. If Iraq goes (further) into the shitter, it will not be good for Obama.
You may be right, or it may make people even more glad we got out of that mess.
Quote from: Phillip V on January 23, 2012, 12:15:07 PM
Is it 10 years in Afghanistan, yet? :lol:
We may have failed there too, but less and more understandably. Iraq was a distraction. Again I think we had a very real opportunity for about 4-5 years in Afghanistan which we didn't take because we moved onto Iraq.
Having said that the Taliban and Pakistan connection made Afghanistan far harder to predict.
Here's hoping an independent Kurdistan makes it out of the ruins.
Quote from: Habbaku on January 23, 2012, 12:19:07 PM
Here's hoping an independent Kurdistan makes it out of the ruins.
Why would you hope for such a disastrous developement?
Quote from: Valmy on January 23, 2012, 12:19:51 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on January 23, 2012, 12:19:07 PM
Here's hoping an independent Kurdistan makes it out of the ruins.
Why would you hope for such a disastrous developement?
Wouldnt the turks shit a cow if that happened?
Yep. And it'd be awesome.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 23, 2012, 12:20:44 PM
Wouldnt the turks shit a cow if that happened?
And the Iranians and the Syrians (assuming they both still have functioning governments).
Fuck 'em.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 23, 2012, 12:14:01 PM
I get the feeling that I'm about to see a train wreck. I dont know why.
Have you been putting stuff on the track again?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 23, 2012, 12:17:49 PM
You may be right, or it may make people even more glad we got out of that mess.
Maybe. I think it's just as likely that Obama will be blamed for things going pear shaped. Juxtaposing those quotes from Obama in the article ([Obama]hailed [al-Maliki] as the leader of "Iraq's most inclusive government yet.") with some of the stuff that's going on ("within a month, al-Maliki would arrest multiple major opposition figures, and Iraqi democracy was on the verge of complete collapse") could be very effective.
If Iraks goes towards civil war, I think the blame lies squarely on the Irakis themselves. Maybe a 3-state solution would have been better.
Why are you opposed to this Valmy?
Quote from: 11B4V on January 23, 2012, 12:14:01 PM
I get the feeling that I'm about to see a train wreck. I dont know why.
I agree, and I know why: the Prime Minister is trying to destroy his own country for sectarian and personal reasons. His reorganization of the government to place all power in his own hands (he is Defense Minister, National Security Minister, and Interior Minister, so all the government's armed agents all report to him) is very worrying.
Quote from: Kleves on January 23, 2012, 01:33:36 PM
Maybe. I think it's just as likely that Obama will be blamed for things going pear shaped. Juxtaposing those quotes from Obama in the article ([Obama]hailed [al-Maliki] as the leader of "Iraq's most inclusive government yet.") with some of the stuff that's going on ("within a month, al-Maliki would arrest multiple major opposition figures, and Iraqi democracy was on the verge of complete collapse") could be very effective.
Bush said the same things. I'm not sure Obama will be blamed for an Iraqi administration that was in place when he took office.
Quote from: Zoupa on January 23, 2012, 01:43:21 PM
If Iraks goes towards civil war, I think the blame lies squarely on the Irakis themselves. Maybe a 3-state solution would have been better.
Why are you opposed to this Valmy?
Opposition is not quite the right word. I just think it would be destabilize the region and be a very bad thing. Now maybe it would have been better if we had carefully managed it but for it to just fly apart organically the clusterfuck is going to be that much worse.
Quote from: Zoupa on January 23, 2012, 01:43:21 PM
If Iraks goes towards civil war, I think the blame lies squarely on the Irakis themselves. Maybe a 3-state solution would have been better.
Why are you opposed to this Valmy?
Blame doesn't matter. Results matter.
Quote from: grumbler on January 23, 2012, 01:56:53 PM
Quote from: Kleves on January 23, 2012, 01:33:36 PM
Maybe. I think it's just as likely that Obama will be blamed for things going pear shaped. Juxtaposing those quotes from Obama in the article ([Obama]hailed [al-Maliki] as the leader of "Iraq's most inclusive government yet.") with some of the stuff that's going on ("within a month, al-Maliki would arrest multiple major opposition figures, and Iraqi democracy was on the verge of complete collapse") could be very effective.
Bush said the same things. I'm not sure Obama will be blamed for an Iraqi administration that was in place when he took office.
Yeah, I don't think the blame for Iraq, to the extent that it lies with the US at all, can be laid at the feet of Obama in any way. Hell, he has basically just extended the very policies that Bush and McCain invented for him.
If Iraq fails, it won't be because of Obama - it would have failed regardless of who ran the US, I think. And likely regardless of anything the US could reasonable have done.
Quote from: Berkut on January 23, 2012, 02:01:05 PM
Yeah, I don't think the blame for Iraq, to the extent that it lies with the US at all, can be laid at the feet of Obama in any way. Hell, he has basically just extended the very policies that Bush and McCain invented for him.
If Iraq fails, it won't be because of Obama - it would have failed regardless of who ran the US, I think. And likely regardless of anything the US could reasonable have done.
I'm sure the GOP presidential campaign people will see it exactly that way this year.
Quote from: Berkut on January 23, 2012, 02:01:05 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 23, 2012, 01:56:53 PM
Quote from: Kleves on January 23, 2012, 01:33:36 PM
Maybe. I think it's just as likely that Obama will be blamed for things going pear shaped. Juxtaposing those quotes from Obama in the article ([Obama]hailed [al-Maliki] as the leader of "Iraq's most inclusive government yet.") with some of the stuff that's going on ("within a month, al-Maliki would arrest multiple major opposition figures, and Iraqi democracy was on the verge of complete collapse") could be very effective.
Bush said the same things. I'm not sure Obama will be blamed for an Iraqi administration that was in place when he took office.
Yeah, I don't think the blame for Iraq, to the extent that it lies with the US at all, can be laid at the feet of Obama in any way. Hell, he has basically just extended the very policies that Bush and McCain invented for him.
If Iraq fails, it won't be because of Obama - it would have failed regardless of who ran the US, I think. And likely regardless of anything the US could reasonable have done.
Same with Afghanistan...
Quote from: grumbler on January 23, 2012, 01:53:32 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 23, 2012, 12:14:01 PM
I get the feeling that I'm about to see a train wreck. I dont know why.
I agree, and I know why: the Prime Minister is trying to destroy his own country for sectarian and personal reasons. His reorganization of the government to place all power in his own hands (he is Defense Minister, National Security Minister, and Interior Minister, so all the government's armed agents all report to him) is very worrying.
Those seem straight out of the playbook for the communist take over of eastern european counties in 46-48, now all we have to figure out is who is Iraq becoming a client state of ? :hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on January 23, 2012, 10:35:33 AM
And we are going to be blamed for this by everybody :yuk:
And rightly so, seeing as it is 100% the fault of the US government.
What did we do? Iraq was lucky that Americans were there to maintain order when Saddam had his unfortunate slip-and-fall accident on the platform.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 23, 2012, 12:20:44 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 23, 2012, 12:19:51 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on January 23, 2012, 12:19:07 PM
Here's hoping an independent Kurdistan makes it out of the ruins.
Why would you hope for such a disastrous developement?
Wouldnt the turks shit a cow if that happened?
My brother was backpacking in Turkish Kurdistan last summer and things didn't look stable at all from what he says. Shots heard at night, dangerous roads, major military movement, brigade-sized incursions into Iraq, etc.
Quote from: Berkut on January 23, 2012, 11:59:14 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 23, 2012, 11:09:32 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 23, 2012, 10:59:44 AM
Thing is, I don't think many people care in the US. Neither Democrats or Republicans really like the Iraqis that much.
No we are pretty tired of the whole thing.
We did what we could. The rest is (mostly) on them.
Agreed.
Is there a military base near Baltimore btw?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 23, 2012, 12:02:25 PM
I'm not sure they properly appreciate the whole "Kill a bunch of you, so the survivors can have a better life", thing.
It worked in Germany and Japan.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 23, 2012, 03:48:26 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 23, 2012, 12:02:25 PM
I'm not sure they properly appreciate the whole "Kill a bunch of you, so the survivors can have a better life", thing.
It worked in Germany and Japan.
That's not why we killed Germans and Japanese.
Quote from: The Brain on January 23, 2012, 03:47:54 PM
Is there a military base near Baltimore btw?
IIRC Andrews is fairly close.
Quote from: Iormlund on January 23, 2012, 03:44:50 PM
My brother was backpacking in Turkish Kurdistan last summer and things didn't look stable at all from what he says. Shots heard at night, dangerous roads, major military movement, brigade-sized incursions into Iraq, etc.
For fuck's sake, it's been like that since the 17th century.
Quote from: Iormlund on January 23, 2012, 03:53:33 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 23, 2012, 03:47:54 PM
Is there a military base near Baltimore btw?
IIRC Andrews is fairly close.
Andrews AFB is down by DC. Baltimore's got Aberdeen PG on one side, and Ft. Meade on the other. Full nuclear preliminary attack conference.
Quote from: Iormlund on January 23, 2012, 03:44:50 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 23, 2012, 12:20:44 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 23, 2012, 12:19:51 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on January 23, 2012, 12:19:07 PM
Here's hoping an independent Kurdistan makes it out of the ruins.
Why would you hope for such a disastrous developement?
Wouldnt the turks shit a cow if that happened?
My brother was backpacking in Turkish Kurdistan last summer and things didn't look stable at all from what he says. Shots heard at night, dangerous roads, major military movement, brigade-sized incursions into Iraq, etc.
Your brother is aware there are mountains in Spain, like probably right outside his house, right?
:lol:
After a trip to China he decided to leave his job and go see the world. He took a bus to Slovenia with another two guys, bought a bike and pedaled all the way to Thessaloníki. Then hitch-hiked alone down to Athens, crossed to Rhodes via Santorini and went into Turkey. The idea was to reach Armenia, Georgia and Iran, but a few days after leaving Istambul a Turkish girl joined him on his quest. He now lives with her in Ankara.
Quote from: Iormlund on January 23, 2012, 04:27:39 PM
:lol:
After a trip to China he decided to leave his job and go see the world. He took a bus to Slovenia with another two guys, bought a bike and pedaled all the way to Thessaloníki. Then hitch-hiked alone down to Athens, crossed to Rhodes via Santorini and went into Turkey. The idea was to reach Armenia, Georgia and Iran, but a few days after leaving Istambul a Turkish girl joined him on his quest. He now lives with her in Ankara.
Is she hot?
Yes.
:lol:
Yeah, like I'm going to put a picture of my brother's girlfriend on Languish.
Detailed description? :)
Quote from: Berkut on January 23, 2012, 02:01:05 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 23, 2012, 01:56:53 PM
Quote from: Kleves on January 23, 2012, 01:33:36 PM
Maybe. I think it's just as likely that Obama will be blamed for things going pear shaped. Juxtaposing those quotes from Obama in the article ([Obama]hailed [al-Maliki] as the leader of "Iraq's most inclusive government yet.") with some of the stuff that's going on ("within a month, al-Maliki would arrest multiple major opposition figures, and Iraqi democracy was on the verge of complete collapse") could be very effective.
Bush said the same things. I'm not sure Obama will be blamed for an Iraqi administration that was in place when he took office.
Yeah, I don't think the blame for Iraq, to the extent that it lies with the US at all, can be laid at the feet of Obama in any way. Hell, he has basically just extended the very policies that Bush and McCain invented for him.
If Iraq fails, it won't be because of Obama - it would have failed regardless of who ran the US, I think. And likely regardless of anything the US could reasonable have done.
well of course, but that fact will not prevent th
a) prompt the GOP to paint a failed Iraq a historic Obama failure
b) have the Democrats celebrate a working Iraq (if that's even possible at this point) as a historic Obama success
Quote from: Iormlund on January 23, 2012, 04:27:39 PM
:lol:
After a trip to China he decided to leave his job and go see the world. He took a bus to Slovenia with another two guys, bought a bike and pedaled all the way to Thessaloníki. Then hitch-hiked alone down to Athens, crossed to Rhodes via Santorini and went into Turkey. The idea was to reach Armenia, Georgia and Iran, but a few days after leaving Istambul a Turkish girl joined him on his quest. He now lives with her in Ankara.
That women possibly saved his life. :cool:
Women, always messing up plans <_< :P
I think the sky is falling assumption here is a bit premature. Al-Maliki is making a power play but so far it is basically a parliamentary power play, relying on his control of the majority of seats. From the OP article, it looks like he is on the verge of extending himself beyond were his majority will carry him. If he responds to a no confidence vote or the like with a military crackdown or blatantly unconstitutional measures, then we can worry. But right now - it is possible to see this getting resolved, however messily, within the parlimentary structure.
The alternative is a three-way breakup of the state, which may not be the worst outcome in the world either.
I found out today that Iorm has a very stupid brother.
Quote from: Iormlund on January 23, 2012, 04:48:11 PM
:lol:
Yeah, like I'm going to put a picture of my brother's girlfriend on Languish.
Why not?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 23, 2012, 07:35:54 PM
I found out today that Iorm has a very stupid brother.
Let darwinism clear the field.
Too many consumers in this planet.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 23, 2012, 04:10:38 PM
Your brother is aware there are mountains in Spain, like probably right outside his house, right?
Must be a hippie. Hippies are always doing stupid shit like this. Remember when those dumb American hippies decided it would be fun to go to Iraq (!!?!?!?!) and then hike to the Iranian border, expected America to rescue them, and then as soon as they were rescued showed their gratitude by publicly attacking US foreign policy?
Quote from: Siege on January 23, 2012, 08:04:34 PM
I hope not! :yuk:
Since he said she's a Turk, in my mind's eye she looks like the Sultana Roxelana, which is odd since I think she was actually a Circassian or Georgian or something non-Turkish like that.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 23, 2012, 07:35:54 PM
I found out today that Iorm has a very stupid brother.
That's a very stupid thing to say.
Quote from: Jacob on January 23, 2012, 08:58:45 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 23, 2012, 07:35:54 PM
I found out today that Iorm has a very stupid brother.
That's a very stupid thing to say.
Not as stupid as hiking through a war zone.
Quote from: Caliga on January 23, 2012, 08:05:02 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 23, 2012, 04:10:38 PM
Your brother is aware there are mountains in Spain, like probably right outside his house, right?
Must be a hippie. Hippies are always doing stupid shit like this. Remember when those dumb American hippies decided it would be fun to go to Iraq (!!?!?!?!) and then hike to the Iranian border, expected America to rescue them, and then as soon as they were rescued showed their gratitude by publicly attacking US foreign policy?
I was of the opinion that we should have let them rot. I suspect it cost the US a lot of man hours (and thus cash), to get those jokers out of there.
Quote from: Caliga on January 23, 2012, 08:06:39 PM
Quote from: Siege on January 23, 2012, 08:04:34 PM
I hope not! :yuk:
Since he said she's a Turk, in my mind's eye she looks like the Sultana Roxelana, which is odd since I think she was actually a Circassian or Georgian or something non-Turkish like that.
I worked with a Turkish girl (and went to school with her in high School). My coworkers thought we would make a good match, and I was inclinded to agree. So I asked her out. She said, no. :( I was a bit disappointed.
Based on the one Turk I know, Turks are all racist scum.
:hmm:
Cal: you forgot rich. That's the part that really burns. "Lolololol I'm more in touch with nature and the plight of the undeveloped nations oh my dad? he's owns a successful business my mom she's a doctor who owns her own practice no I've never done manual labor, or really any labor to speak of, but my dad is totally harshing my buzz about helping run their widget division what a drag."
Maybe Iormbro is different, as Iorm said at one point he did in fact have a job. (Even so, I suspect he's radically similar. :secret: )
Those Iran-loving America-hating hippie scumbags were rich? I didn't know that, but I'm not surprised. :)
Well, I don't know, but I'm practically certain.
Quote from: Caliga on January 23, 2012, 09:40:52 PM
Those Iran-loving America-hating hippie scumbags were rich? I didn't know that, but I'm not surprised. :)
Maybe we can send them back.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 23, 2012, 03:57:01 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on January 23, 2012, 03:53:33 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 23, 2012, 03:47:54 PM
Is there a military base near Baltimore btw?
IIRC Andrews is fairly close.
Andrews AFB is down by DC. Baltimore's got Aberdeen PG on one side, and Ft. Meade on the other. Full nuclear preliminary attack conference.
Is Pax River Naval Air Station still operating? I was there briefly for some training on new aircraft, back when I was in the service/reserves.
Quote from: grumbler on January 23, 2012, 01:53:32 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 23, 2012, 12:14:01 PM
I get the feeling that I'm about to see a train wreck. I dont know why.
I agree, and I know why: the Prime Minister is trying to destroy his own country for sectarian and personal reasons. His reorganization of the government to place all power in his own hands (he is Defense Minister, National Security Minister, and Interior Minister, so all the government's armed agents all report to him) is very worrying.
I know why iraq is/will be a train wreck. I was refer to this thread... :D
Quote from: KRonn on January 23, 2012, 09:57:00 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 23, 2012, 03:57:01 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on January 23, 2012, 03:53:33 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 23, 2012, 03:47:54 PM
Is there a military base near Baltimore btw?
IIRC Andrews is fairly close.
Andrews AFB is down by DC. Baltimore's got Aberdeen PG on one side, and Ft. Meade on the other. Full nuclear preliminary attack conference.
Is Pax River Naval Air Station still operating? I was there briefly for some training on new aircraft, back when I was in the service/reserves.
Oh yeah. Whenever I go down to the nuclear power plant, I invariably see some F-18s or an occasional E-2C Hawkeye flying about.
Quote from: Iormlund on January 23, 2012, 04:27:39 PM
:lol:
After a trip to China he decided to leave his job and go see the world. He took a bus to Slovenia with another two guys, bought a bike and pedaled all the way to Thessaloníki. Then hitch-hiked alone down to Athens, crossed to Rhodes via Santorini and went into Turkey. The idea was to reach Armenia, Georgia and Iran, but a few days after leaving Istambul a Turkish girl joined him on his quest. He now lives with her in Ankara.
That sounds awesome. I'm very, very jealous.
I have a planned trip I've always wanted to do from Istanbul into Iran and back, spending some time dallying around the Caucus. One day.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 24, 2012, 01:43:20 AM
That sounds awesome. I'm very, very jealous.
That's what his boss said when my brother told him what he was leaving the job for. :lol:
Quote
I have a planned trip I've always wanted to do from Istanbul into Iran and back, spending some time dallying around the Caucus. One day.
He certainly had a blast. I would be tempted to do the same if it wasn't for my thing. I'm not anywhere near as adventurous when it comes to travel, food or places to stay though, so I'd do it on a motorbike or car and sleeping at campings and such.
Quote from: Iormlund on January 24, 2012, 08:13:22 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 24, 2012, 01:43:20 AM
That sounds awesome. I'm very, very jealous.
That's what his boss said when my brother told him what he was leaving the job for. :lol:
Quote
I have a planned trip I've always wanted to do from Istanbul into Iran and back, spending some time dallying around the Caucus. One day.
He certainly had a blast. I would be tempted to do the same if it wasn't for my thing. I'm not anywhere near as adventurous when it comes to travel, food or places to stay though, so I'd do it on a motorbike or car and sleeping at campings and such.
There was an epic planning thread on previous Languish, about a month-long US car trip me and 2 of my family were planning / dreaming about. Too bad it's lost, people have given a lot of good ideas and we haven't dared to burn most of our savings on this, there is a good chance we never will
If things go tits up in Iraq, America will get the blame, and rightfully so, sad to say. After all, this is the government that was left in place after Dubya invaded the place and removed the previous one... an extremely controversial action which the administration and its apologists then spent years justifying to the world as regime change in order to bring teh freedom to Iraqis.
Iraq 2 has to have been the biggest US policy boner in my lifetime.
Quote from: mongers on January 23, 2012, 05:33:07 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on January 23, 2012, 04:27:39 PM
:lol:
After a trip to China he decided to leave his job and go see the world. He took a bus to Slovenia with another two guys, bought a bike and pedaled all the way to Thessaloníki. Then hitch-hiked alone down to Athens, crossed to Rhodes via Santorini and went into Turkey. The idea was to reach Armenia, Georgia and Iran, but a few days after leaving Istambul a Turkish girl joined him on his quest. He now lives with her in Ankara.
That women possibly saved his life. :cool:
All you'll die from in Georgia is khatchapuri. :yuk:
Quote from: Caliga on January 23, 2012, 09:40:52 PM
Those Iran-loving America-hating hippie scumbags were rich? I didn't know that, but I'm not surprised. :)
If they were the kind of Cal grads I'm familiar with, almost certainly.
Incidentally, a few months ago I met some cyclists outside of the local refrigerated market who were going from Istanbul to Shanghai. I took them to the internet cafe and they told me that I worked for an evil organization. I wonder if they made it.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on January 24, 2012, 11:03:45 AM
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.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 24, 2012, 02:08:30 PM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on January 24, 2012, 11:03:45 AM
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.
When it comes to a desire to assign blame, issues such as this are not really important to people who have an agenda. The Iraqis are just victims of the evil Americans, they cannot have any responsibility themselves. Only Americans can be responsible for Iraq.
It is a rather bizarre viewpoint, isn't it? Iraqis are not responsible for what happens in their own country, apparently.
I could certainly see the viewpoint that the US could bear some responsibility if the US went in, took out a stable government, and then neglected to even try to give the successor government the tools necessary to manage themselves. But I don't think you can make any such claim credibly - Iraq has had more help than many, many, MANY countries that have managed to not fall to pieces. Between US and allied support and a easy source of revenue in oil, I don't see how anyone can claim that they do not have the necessary tools to assume responsibility for their own state.
Quote from: Caliga on January 23, 2012, 08:06:39 PM
Quote from: Siege on January 23, 2012, 08:04:34 PM
I hope not! :yuk:
Since he said she's a Turk, in my mind's eye she looks like the Sultana Roxelana, which is odd since I think she was actually a Circassian or Georgian or something non-Turkish like that.
She would be called a Ukrainian today.
Quote from: Berkut on January 24, 2012, 02:21:09 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 24, 2012, 02:08:30 PM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on January 24, 2012, 11:03:45 AM
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.
When it comes to a desire to assign blame, issues such as this are not really important to people who have an agenda. The Iraqis are just victims of the evil Americans, they cannot have any responsibility themselves. Only Americans can be responsible for Iraq.
It is a rather bizarre viewpoint, isn't it? Iraqis are not responsible for what happens in their own country, apparently.
I could certainly see the viewpoint that the US could bear some responsibility if the US went in, took out a stable government, and then neglected to even try to give the successor government the tools necessary to manage themselves. But I don't think you can make any such claim credibly - Iraq has had more help than many, many, MANY countries that have managed to not fall to pieces. Between US and allied support and a easy source of revenue in oil, I don't see how anyone can claim that they do not have the necessary tools to assume responsibility for their own state.
You can't? Think a little harder. Keep in mind the Iraq was fairly stable prior to the first Gulf War. It's dishonest to say "Well, it was unstable before we got there", when the US was major source of that instability.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 24, 2012, 02:55:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 24, 2012, 02:21:09 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 24, 2012, 02:08:30 PM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on January 24, 2012, 11:03:45 AM
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.
When it comes to a desire to assign blame, issues such as this are not really important to people who have an agenda. The Iraqis are just victims of the evil Americans, they cannot have any responsibility themselves. Only Americans can be responsible for Iraq.
It is a rather bizarre viewpoint, isn't it? Iraqis are not responsible for what happens in their own country, apparently.
I could certainly see the viewpoint that the US could bear some responsibility if the US went in, took out a stable government, and then neglected to even try to give the successor government the tools necessary to manage themselves. But I don't think you can make any such claim credibly - Iraq has had more help than many, many, MANY countries that have managed to not fall to pieces. Between US and allied support and a easy source of revenue in oil, I don't see how anyone can claim that they do not have the necessary tools to assume responsibility for their own state.
You can't? Think a little harder. Keep in mind the Iraq was fairly stable prior to the first Gulf War. It's dishonest to say "Well, it was unstable before we got there", when the US was major source of that instability.
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.
Quote from: Berkut on January 24, 2012, 03:55:59 PM
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.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 24, 2012, 04:01:51 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 24, 2012, 03:55:59 PM
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...
Quote from: Berkut on January 24, 2012, 04:07:52 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 24, 2012, 04:01:51 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 24, 2012, 03:55:59 PM
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.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 24, 2012, 04:15:34 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 24, 2012, 04:07:52 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 24, 2012, 04:01:51 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 24, 2012, 03:55:59 PM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on January 24, 2012, 03:55:59 PM
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).
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 24, 2012, 02:08:30 PM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on January 24, 2012, 11:03:45 AM
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.
So, how long until Gulf War 3?
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.
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".
Quote from: Berkut on January 24, 2012, 07:55:50 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 24, 2012, 08:17:34 PM
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.
Berkut is not Tribalist.
Quote from: Siege on January 24, 2012, 08:24:54 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on January 24, 2012, 09:07:17 PM
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.
Your argument is not even internally consistent Berkut. And you seem to be defining "Stable" as something more then stable.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 24, 2012, 08:17:34 PM
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".
Lets look at a timeline of Iraq under Saddam, this "stable" country you are talking about.
1979: Saddam takes power
1980: Saddam declares war on Iran.
1986: Saddam starts the An-afal campaign against the Kurds
1988: Height of the An-afal campaign. Saddam and his stable friends kill somewhere around 100,000 people
1988: War with Iran ends in stalemate, death toll: ~1.5 million
1990: Iraq invades Kuwait.
From 79 to 90, is 11 years. During that time, the only time in which Iraq is not at war is about a year after the end of the An Afal campaign. And Iraq immediately starts yet another war with Kuwait, whom they owed tens of billions of dollars to as a result of the last decade of war.
The idea that Iraq was "stable" is like saying Hitlers Germany was stable while they were invading Poland, France, and Russia. Saddam was a classic military dictator who simply had no idea what to do other than attack. He never at any point did anything else, except when he *could not* attack anyone.
Iraq was not a stable nation state prior to GF1. It was a hyper agressive military dictatorship intent on war, and that is what they got. Blaming the UN for fighting that war is simply crazy. I have no doubt that had the world simply looked the other way, Saudi Arabia would be have been next. Saddam didn't know how to run a country except at war.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 24, 2012, 11:11:47 PM
Your argument is not even internally consistent Berkut. And you seem to be defining "Stable" as something more then stable.
No, I am saying that stable means more than simply not in an active civil war. And even at that, you can debate whether Iraq was in fact stable by that criteria. How can you say it was stable when it was less than a year removed from trying to genocide a chunk of their population? How is the state dropping chemical weapons on its own people "stable"?
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
It's kind of amazing how little people understand the history of a conflict they appear to care very deeply about.
I knew it.
Quote from: Berkut on January 24, 2012, 10:59:35 PM
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.
Sure there is.
Quote from: Berkut on January 24, 2012, 11:13:35 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 24, 2012, 11:11:47 PM
Your argument is not even internally consistent Berkut. And you seem to be defining "Stable" as something more then stable.
No, I am saying that stable means more than simply not in an active civil war. And even at that, you can debate whether Iraq was in fact stable by that criteria. How can you say it was stable when it was less than a year removed from trying to genocide a chunk of their population? How is the state dropping chemical weapons on its own people "stable"?
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
I know what the word means. You are applying additional meanings to it. "stable" and "liberal democracy" are not synonyms.
Quote from: Berkut on January 24, 2012, 11:16:16 PM
It's kind of amazing how little people understand the history of a conflict they appear to care very deeply about.
Actually I do not care deeply for the Iraqis. I suspect few people actually do in the US. I'm a Dem. I was perfectly willing let the people languish under a murderous dictator. Those who supported the war were perfectly willing to kill over 100,000 Iraqis to overthrow said dictator. I think it's hypocritical for anyone to say they have the Iraqis best interests at heart.
Quote from: Berkut on January 24, 2012, 11:11:58 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 24, 2012, 08:17:34 PM
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".
Lets look at a timeline of Iraq under Saddam, this "stable" country you are talking about.
1979: Saddam takes power
1980: Saddam declares war on Iran.
1986: Saddam starts the An-afal campaign against the Kurds
1988: Height of the An-afal campaign. Saddam and his stable friends kill somewhere around 100,000 people
1988: War with Iran ends in stalemate, death toll: ~1.5 million
1990: Iraq invades Kuwait.
From 79 to 90, is 11 years. During that time, the only time in which Iraq is not at war is about a year after the end of the An Afal campaign. And Iraq immediately starts yet another war with Kuwait, whom they owed tens of billions of dollars to as a result of the last decade of war.
The idea that Iraq was "stable" is like saying Hitlers Germany was stable while they were invading Poland, France, and Russia. Saddam was a classic military dictator who simply had no idea what to do other than attack. He never at any point did anything else, except when he *could not* attack anyone.
Iraq was not a stable nation state prior to GF1. It was a hyper agressive military dictatorship intent on war, and that is what they got. Blaming the UN for fighting that war is simply crazy. I have no doubt that had the world simply looked the other way, Saudi Arabia would be have been next. Saddam didn't know how to run a country except at war.
Irrelevant. The US didn't become "unstable" from 2002-present.
The chain of casualties is what we left behind. :)
Quote from: RazIrrelevant. The US didn't become "unstable" from 2002-present.
Oh?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 24, 2012, 11:56:11 PM
Irrelevant. The US didn't become "unstable" from 2002-present.
You can argue that it became somewhat mentally unstable, though.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 24, 2012, 11:56:11 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 24, 2012, 11:11:58 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 24, 2012, 08:17:34 PM
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".
Lets look at a timeline of Iraq under Saddam, this "stable" country you are talking about.
1979: Saddam takes power
1980: Saddam declares war on Iran.
1986: Saddam starts the An-afal campaign against the Kurds
1988: Height of the An-afal campaign. Saddam and his stable friends kill somewhere around 100,000 people
1988: War with Iran ends in stalemate, death toll: ~1.5 million
1990: Iraq invades Kuwait.
From 79 to 90, is 11 years. During that time, the only time in which Iraq is not at war is about a year after the end of the An Afal campaign. And Iraq immediately starts yet another war with Kuwait, whom they owed tens of billions of dollars to as a result of the last decade of war.
The idea that Iraq was "stable" is like saying Hitlers Germany was stable while they were invading Poland, France, and Russia. Saddam was a classic military dictator who simply had no idea what to do other than attack. He never at any point did anything else, except when he *could not* attack anyone.
Iraq was not a stable nation state prior to GF1. It was a hyper agressive military dictatorship intent on war, and that is what they got. Blaming the UN for fighting that war is simply crazy. I have no doubt that had the world simply looked the other way, Saudi Arabia would be have been next. Saddam didn't know how to run a country except at war.
Irrelevant. The US didn't become "unstable" from 2002-present.
How is that remotely comparable? Who has claimed the US is unstable?
Fuck, why am I arguing with you again?
I am the unstable one.
Whatever the stability status of Iraq before the 2003 invasion it was known to the US (a known known). Therefore it doesn't lead anywhere to blame today's problems on prior instability.
Quote from: Berkut on January 24, 2012, 10:59:35 PM
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.
Firstly, claiming that the regime change argument that was advanced as justification for the war is just a "strawman" that I happened to make up is simply risible and mind-numbing in its dishonesty.
Secondly, the chain of responsibility for the US for the current situation does begin at Iraq 2, because (a) everyone knew the situation was fucked up in the first place, and (b) the US decided to take it upon itself to manufacture a war there in 2003. Stating that, "well, there was instability there in 1980!" may be true, but it is irrelevant, because the US completely voluntarily intervened in 2003 and overthrew the existing order. As such, it then assumed considerable responsibility for the ensuing order.
Notice how nobody (except perhaps a lunatic fringe) holds the US responsible for instability in say, Nepal, because the US has no meaningful involvement there. The same can't be said for Iraq.
Quote from: Berkut on January 25, 2012, 01:14:16 AM
How is that remotely comparable? Who has claimed the US is unstable?
Fuck, why am I arguing with you again?
I am the unstable one.
You were the one making connection between warfare and instability.
The situation which forms after your military invasion and during your military control is fully your responsibility.
I don't understand how is this even debatable?
Are you telling me that stuff like the post-WW2 rebuild success stories have nothing to do with the foreign powers being involved in West Germany and Japan for example? Than what is the point of military intervention?
:berkut: :lol:
The most successful troll on Languish - his success is that noone ever calls him a troll.
Quote from: Tamas on January 25, 2012, 05:12:57 AM
The situation which forms after your military invasion and during your military control is fully your responsibility.
To some extent that is true - fully? Absolutely not.
And we are not talking about the situation after our invasion of Iraq, but the situation after our invasion, and after nearly a decade of post-invasion rebuilding.
Are we resposible now for Iraq forever and ever, no matter what they do themselves? Can they never be responsible for themselves ever again?
Quote
I don't understand how is this even debatable?
I don't understand either. The basic idea of self rule seems to be a pretty established principle by now.
Quote
Are you telling me that stuff like the post-WW2 rebuild success stories have nothing to do with the foreign powers being involved in West Germany and Japan for example?
Of course not - why would you get any idea like that? Have you read anything I've said, or just listened to Raz and Marty?
Quote
Than what is the point of military intervention?
Generally to take out some threat. What is the point of your question?
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on January 25, 2012, 03:39:04 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 24, 2012, 10:59:35 PM
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.
Firstly, claiming that the regime change argument that was advanced as justification for the war is just a "strawman" that I happened to make up is simply risible and mind-numbing in its dishonesty.
Secondly, the chain of responsibility for the US for the current situation does begin at Iraq 2, because (a) everyone knew the situation was fucked up in the first place,
SO everyone knowing that the situation was fucked up somehow makes the fact that it WAS fucked up somehow not matter in evaluating the current situation? Huh?
How does that make any sense at all? Yes, prior to GF2 the situation was a mess, and everyone knows that. The doesn't somehow reset responsiblity for how it got that way.
Quote
and (b) the US decided to take it upon itself to manufacture a war there in 2003.
That is a rather telling way to look at the situation, that illuminates your entire agenda in the argument.
But in any case, whether the US "manufactured" a war or not, it doesn't change the fact that if the US had NOT engaged in GF2, it is crazy to pretend like everything in Iraq would be just fine absent GF2. It would not be, Iraq would be a disaster, just like it has been since 1979.
Quote
Stating that, "well, there was instability there in 1980!" may be true, but it is irrelevant, because the US completely voluntarily intervened in 2003 and overthrew the existing order. As such, it then assumed considerable responsibility for the ensuing order.
I would agree that the US did in fact assume responsibility for Iraq by taking over - my point is that that does not mean that the US is forever and ever responsible for Iraq, and by extension Iraq can never be responsible for themselves. The US has fulfileed, and then some, the responsibility they created by their actions. If Iraq fails at this point, it is on them.
And I most certainly do not agree with this revisionist history that Iraq was a-ok before the US stuck its nose in. The US stuck its nose in as a direct result of Iraq being a freaking disaster in progress. That may have been a mistake, but not because it means that the US is forever responsible for the future of Iraq.
Quote
Notice how nobody (except perhaps a lunatic fringe) holds the US responsible for instability in say, Nepal, because the US has no meaningful involvement there. The same can't be said for Iraq.
Of course - but the lunatic fringe does hold the US responsible for Iraq, well beyond any reasonable understanding that the problems in Iraq were not created by the US. The reason that Iraq falls apart (if in fact they do fall apart) will not be because the US created an unstable situation from a stable one, or destroyed a working state.
At worst, you can say the US tried to create a working state from a non-working state, and failed, and that was stupid because they should have known it would fail. But that is vastly different from the idea that Iraq would actually be better off (much less their neighbors) if only the US hadn't fucked the place up.
What is your "agenda", Berkut? And how does it differ from PP's "agenda".
Quote from: Razgovory on January 25, 2012, 09:30:54 AM
What is your "agenda", Berkut?
To remember how pointless it is to engage in any discussion with you.
I love how Berkut suddenly ascribes to me a hidden "agenda" of some kind, when in fact it is simply a manifestation of his paranoia at those who would criticize some element of America's foreign policy. I love the US, and fully support its ideals and think it is positively a force for good in the world, and I challenge you to think of a time when I was irrationally criticizing it. But because I have the temerity to suggest it might have fucked up something (i.e. the current situation in Iraq), Berkut concludes I must have an "agenda."
I'm afraid if anyone on this board has an "agenda" whenever discussions of US foreign policy come up, it is not me.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on January 25, 2012, 09:54:34 AM
I love how Berkut suddenly ascribes to me a hidden "agenda" of some kind, when in fact it is simply a manifestation of his paranoia at those who would criticize some element of America's foreign policy. I love the US, and fully support its ideals and think it is positively a force for good in the world, and I challenge you to think of a time when I was irrationally criticizing it. But because I have the temerity to suggest it might have fucked up something (i.e. the current situation in Iraq), Berkut concludes I must have an "agenda."
I'm afraid if anyone on this board has an "agenda" whenever discussions of US foreign policy come up, it is not me.
My disagreement with you has nothing to do with your temerity to suggest that the US fucked up in Iraq, as I've made clear several times.
My disagreement is with the claim that because the US intervened, they are now forever and ever responsible for whatever happens in Iraq, no matter what they do and how much we've spent to give them the opportunity to create or re-create a better state.
I think that is both unfair to the US, and even more unfair to the Iraqis - they are not little children who are somehow innately incapable of self governance, and hence someone else has to be responsible for them.
My point is very simple, and frankly I am surprised it is even debated. To the extent that Iraq fails to create a successful and stable state, it will be because of intrinsic problems that existed in that country long before the US got involved in GF1 or GF2.
To use one of Marty's famous analogy's, the house was on fire before we came along. We may have failed to put the fire out, but we didn't start it to begin with. And at the least we kept it from spreading.
*If* Iraq fails, it will be in spite of US efforts, not as a result of US meddling.
:lmfao:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbrotherpeacemaker.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F11%2Fcains-train-wreck.jpg&hash=67a0e3a4c9c04cc1a0f6f583f0cc67d63fedc20e)
Quote from: Berkut on January 25, 2012, 10:03:32 AM
*If* Iraq fails, it will be in spite of US efforts, not as a result of US meddling.
:yes:
Quote from: Berkut on January 25, 2012, 10:03:32 AM
I think that is both unfair to the US, and even more unfair to the Iraqis - they are not little children who are somehow innately incapable of self governance, and hence someone else has to be responsible for them.
Is this why the US stepped in and took responsibility for them?
Eh, you can lead a horse to water, but you cant make him drink it.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 25, 2012, 10:10:15 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 25, 2012, 10:03:32 AM
*If* Iraq fails, it will be in spite of US efforts, not as a result of US meddling.
:yes:
Meh people are not going to be charitable to us. Especially since politicians in the US will not be and blame each other for failing in Iraq.
Quote from: Berkut on January 24, 2012, 07:55:50 PM
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.
The argument that Iraq was stable before it engaged in the invasion of Kuwait is absurd. Iraq had military coups in 1941, 1958, 1963, and 1968, and civil wars/rebellions almost constantly since it was created. Calling the US a "major source" of Iraqi instability is like calling your leaking faucet a "major source" of the Great Lakes.
Quote from: Valmy on January 25, 2012, 10:24:08 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 25, 2012, 10:10:15 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 25, 2012, 10:03:32 AM
*If* Iraq fails, it will be in spite of US efforts, not as a result of US meddling.
:yes:
Meh people are not going to be charitable to us. Especially since politicians in the US will not be and blame each other for failing in Iraq.
Oh, I realize that.
Doesn't mean I have to sit there and listen to people spout the stupid without comment though.
It's like blaming the Obama administration - it might be easy to do (and I am sure the conservitards will do so because why wouldn't they), but that doesn't make it accurate, and bullshit should not go unchallenged.
Quote from: Valmy on January 25, 2012, 10:24:08 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 25, 2012, 10:10:15 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 25, 2012, 10:03:32 AM
*If* Iraq fails, it will be in spite of US efforts, not as a result of US meddling.
:yes:
Meh people are not going to be charitable to us. Especially since politicians in the US will not be and blame each other for failing in Iraq.
True, but the US doesnt need any charity and I for one wouldnt want it or need it anyway.
I think we failed and are responsible for the collapse of the Iraqi state. But I'd make three points on this.
Firstly I don't think the status of Iraq as a failed state (and an unstable one) prior to the war matters. We would hardly have gone to war, seeking regime change and to stabilise the Middle East, with a stable and successful state. If the problems of Iraq were insurmountable then that doesn't excuse the war or our actions, it just further damns them. If we went into a war that could not possible succeed in achieving our goals - which were humanitarian - then our leaders deserve even more condemnation than they get for invading and fucking up.
Secondly I think we are responsible for the Iraqi civil war. The reason the surge happened and was necessary in 2006 was because for 3 years we had not put enough troops to provide security, from a British perspective this is particularly the case. We enabled extremists like al-Qaeda to provoke a civil war through attacks on the Shias and were the occupying power while Shia and Sunni death squads ethnically cleansed neighbourhood. We failed to provide the security necessary for a settlement in Iraq for 3 years while the situation got worse. So, I think, problems that arise from that civil war are our responsibility. In my opinion most problems that are currently coming to a head in Iraq do stem from the civil war.
Third is that the surge did provide security. As I've always said it would provide security but would mean nothing without a political settlement. The hope of the surge had to be that it would enable a settlement, that the pause in the violence would allow the parties to come together. The fear I had was that actually the Shia parties would consolidate power and Americans would end their role in Iraq with the Shia clapping them out and the Sunni wishing they'd stay. Sadly, I think that's happened. This isn't our responsibility except for one detail. Bush had a Putin moment with Maliki and basically saw into his soul and decided to back him very strongly. I think that was probably an error. But aside from that in this period I think there's little the US could have done that they didn't. The surge worked, but didn't lead to a settlement. Biden as Senator, with Bush's position, and as VP has been trying for years to work a deal out with the Iraqis. He's on the phone to different Iraqi leaders on a daily basis trying to broker a deal and his personal commitment to trying to solve the problems I think reflects well on him and more general US policy.
From here on in it's ridiculous to assign blame. I said in 2008 that Obama and McCain would have the same policy on Iraq. The policy for the past 3 years has been set by the SOFA that was agreed by Bush and was the longest running it could have been. Short of unilaterally re-occupying the country it's difficult to see what could be done to stop an authoritarian PM getting rid of you as agreed.
Quote from: Berkut on January 25, 2012, 10:03:32 AM
It's like blaming the Obama administration - it might be easy to do (and I am sure the conservitards will do so because why wouldn't they), but that doesn't make it accurate, and bullshit should not go unchallenged.
IMO, he(Obama) got handed at shit sandwich.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 25, 2012, 10:31:31 AM
True, but the US doesnt need any charity and I for one wouldnt want it or need it anyway.
Um I obviously did not mean charity I meant giving us the benefit of the doubt. You want everybody to assume the worst of us and wouldn't want it any other way? Weird.
Quote from: Berkut on January 25, 2012, 01:14:16 AM
How is that remotely comparable? Who has claimed the US is unstable?
Fuck, why am I arguing with you again?
I am the unstable one.
Took you long enough! :lol:
The only way to avoid instability is to avoid responding to Raz's comments. You cannot enter a Raztroll and expect an intellectual argument to break out.
Quote from: Valmy on January 25, 2012, 10:36:49 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 25, 2012, 10:31:31 AM
True, but the US doesnt need any charity and I for one wouldnt want it or need it anyway.
Um I obviously did not mean charity I meant giving us the benefit of the doubt. You want everybody to assume the worst of us and wouldn't want it any other way? Weird.
Ah, your clarification changes that. I dont want their benefit of the doubt.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 25, 2012, 10:39:08 AM
Ah, your clarification changes that. I dont want their benefit of the doubt.
Well good for you. Anyway I was not saying what you wanted just stating what I believe to be true.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on January 25, 2012, 09:54:34 AM
I love how Berkut suddenly ascribes to me a hidden "agenda" of some kind, when in fact it is simply a manifestation of his paranoia at those who would criticize some element of America's foreign policy. I love the US, and fully support its ideals and think it is positively a force for good in the world, and I challenge you to think of a time when I was irrationally criticizing it. But because I have the temerity to suggest it might have fucked up something (i.e. the current situation in Iraq), Berkut concludes I must have an "agenda."
I would certainly argue that you choose your words for their rhetorical effect, not their semantic content. The US didn't "manufacture" the Iraq crisis in 2003; things had been going to shit there for a very long time, a fact that you have ignored in all of your pronouncements.
QuoteI'm afraid if anyone on this board has an "agenda" whenever discussions of US foreign policy come up, it is not me.
Your lack of self-knowledge is unsurprising. I don't think anyone is fooled by you but yourself, however.
Quote from: Valmy on January 25, 2012, 10:42:28 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 25, 2012, 10:39:08 AM
Ah, your clarification changes that. I dont want their benefit of the doubt.
Well good for you. Anyway I was not saying what you wanted just stating what I believe to be true.
Understood and good to go. Moving on. ;)
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 25, 2012, 10:34:14 AM
I think we failed and are responsible for the collapse of the Iraqi state.
You may have failed, and you may, indeed, be responsible for the collapse of the Iraqi state, but when did the Iraqi state collapse, what caused it to be restored to its current, uncollapsed state, and what, exactly, did you do?
QuoteFirstly I don't think the status of Iraq as a failed state (and an unstable one) prior to the war matters. We would hardly have gone to war, seeking regime change and to stabilise the Middle East, with a stable and successful state. If the problems of Iraq were insurmountable then that doesn't excuse the war or our actions, it just further damns them. If we went into a war that could not possible succeed in achieving our goals - which were humanitarian - then our leaders deserve even more condemnation than they get for invading and fucking up.
Disagree, because the outcome of the invasion isn't a binary outcome. You can argue that the resulting Iraqi state isn't strong enough nor brings sufficient benefits to its people, but you cannot argue that thet status of Iraq in the absence of an intervention is a factor in deciding on whether or not to intervene. I think that your success in achieving your goals cannot be determined as yet; if you had the benefit for the people of Iraq as your objective, then only the Iraqis themselves will be able to say whether or not your efforts were a mistake, and even then only in hindsight.
QuoteSecondly I think we are responsible for the Iraqi civil war. The reason the surge happened and was necessary in 2006 was because for 3 years we had not put enough troops to provide security, from a British perspective this is particularly the case. We enabled extremists like al-Qaeda to provoke a civil war through attacks on the Shias and were the occupying power while Shia and Sunni death squads ethnically cleansed neighbourhood. We failed to provide the security necessary for a settlement in Iraq for 3 years while the situation got worse. So, I think, problems that arise from that civil war are our responsibility. In my opinion most problems that are currently coming to a head in Iraq do stem from the civil war.
I think this is a valid confession. You didn't put in the needed troops to fulfill your responsibilities. Had you (and your allies) committed sufficient troops, the Iraqi Civil war would have been delayed by years.
People here should relax a bit. The important thing is that Iraq didn't turn into another Vietnam.
Quote from: The Brain on January 25, 2012, 11:12:28 AM
People here should relax a bit. The important thing is that Iraq didn't turn into another Vietnam.
Not enough jungle.
Quote from: grumbler on January 25, 2012, 10:37:24 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 25, 2012, 01:14:16 AM
How is that remotely comparable? Who has claimed the US is unstable?
Fuck, why am I arguing with you again?
I am the unstable one.
Took you long enough! :lol:
The only way to avoid instability is to avoid responding to Raz's comments. You cannot enter a Raztroll and expect an intellectual argument to break out.
Congrats Berkut, you got Grumbler on your side. And he's paraphrasing Marty analogies. You know you are the winning side now.
Quote from: The Brain on January 25, 2012, 11:12:28 AM
People here should relax a bit. The important thing is that Iraq didn't turn into another Vietnam.
That's because Abdul don't surf.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwebdelsol.com%2FSolPix%2Fsurfkilgore.JPG&hash=174e47b1788aca7cb2f39aacac5ff4aab0fdc79f)
Quote from: Berkut on January 25, 2012, 10:03:32 AM
*If* Iraq fails, it will be in spite of US efforts, not as a result of US meddling.
The US invaded and knocked out Saddam, who was the best hope for advancement and stability in Iraq. Since then, they disbanded the army and have tried to balance the interests of the three main ethnic groups, which has only made things worse.
Nobody in the US paused to consider what they were doing. They just rushed to impose their democracy without thinking.
Quote from: Neil on January 25, 2012, 01:59:08 PM
The US invaded and knocked out Saddam, who was the best hope for advancement and stability in Iraq. Since then, they disbanded the army and have tried to balance the interests of the three main ethnic groups, which has only made things worse.
Nobody in the US paused to consider what they were doing. They just rushed to impose their democracy without thinking.
I have no regrets about toppling Saddam. But I always disagreed with the Quixotic notion of somehow being able to establish a western-style democracy there. Before, during, and after the invasion I was in favor of either partitioning the country or installing a US-friendly (or at least US-neutral) strongman.
The only silver lining at our attempts to install democracy is that we can say we tried. Plus it's a fresh case study to use against neocons when the subject of nation-building arises.
I've come to the conclusion that places like Iraq have dictators because dictators are the only ones who can enforce a semblance of order. People really do get the government they deserve.
Quote from: derspiess on January 25, 2012, 05:31:55 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 25, 2012, 01:59:08 PM
The US invaded and knocked out Saddam, who was the best hope for advancement and stability in Iraq. Since then, they disbanded the army and have tried to balance the interests of the three main ethnic groups, which has only made things worse.
Nobody in the US paused to consider what they were doing. They just rushed to impose their democracy without thinking.
I have no regrets about toppling Saddam. But I always disagreed with the Quixotic notion of somehow being able to establish a western-style democracy there. Before, during, and after the invasion I was in favor of either partitioning the country or installing a US-friendly (or at least US-neutral) strongman.
Me too, but what do we know.
A stable government does not mean a democratic government. I wanted another Sunni general from Tikrit.
A country with 66% Shia population? WHAT COULD HAPPEN DUBYA
Sunni, Shia, Alawite, whatever. Like it matters?
Kurdistan declaring independence (and probably a neat little civil war) might just might make my 2012 predictions list.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 25, 2012, 10:26:54 PM
I've come to the conclusion that places like Iraq have dictators because dictators are the only ones who can enforce a semblance of order. People really do get the government they deserve.
Whoa, I would have never thought for a moment that such wisdom could come out of your mouth.
Quote from: Siege on January 26, 2012, 10:10:04 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 25, 2012, 10:26:54 PM
I've come to the conclusion that places like Iraq have dictators because dictators are the only ones who can enforce a semblance of order. People really do get the government they deserve.
Whoa, I would have never thought for a moment that such wisdom could come out of your mouth.
Well, technically it came out of his fingers.
I'm flattered. I think.
Does this mean that we can blame France for slavery in the United States? :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 27, 2012, 08:53:01 AM
Does this mean that we can blame France for slavery in the United States? :)
Because the United States also needed a dictator to keep together and instead France forced us to adopt a Democratic Constitution thus making the Civil War inevitable?
Or wait that didn't start slavery in the US. WTF Yi?
Slavery came to the US from Africa.
Quote from: Valmy on January 27, 2012, 08:56:37 AM
Because the United States also needed a dictator to keep together and instead France forced us to adopt a Democratic Constitution thus making the Civil War inevitable?
Or wait that didn't start slavery in the US. WTF Yi?
And GWII didn't start sectarian hositility and violence in Iraq.
There has to be a statute of limitations on this kind of thing. At some point in time Iraqis have to be judged for the results of their own choices.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 27, 2012, 09:09:13 AM
And GWII didn't start sectarian hositility and violence in Iraq.
There has to be a statute of limitations on this kind of thing. At some point in time Iraqis have to be judged for the results of their own choices.
Nature abhors a vaccum.
What's your limitation period on this one? When does it start from. Does it apply equally to apartheid, 9/11, the holocaust and colonialism?
The absence of security and empowering of extreme forces, both consequences of a failed occupation, did.
Well to be fair, if France had invaded the British Colonies and implemented a democratic constitution under its military protection and then left we probably would still be holding them responsible for anything that went wrong.
Quote from: Gups on January 27, 2012, 09:13:54 AM
Nature abhors a vaccum.
What's your limitation period on this one? When does it start from. Does it apply equally to apartheid, 9/11, the holocaust and colonialism?
I don't understand the question.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 27, 2012, 09:09:13 AM
At some point in time Iraqis have to be judged for the results of their own choices.
But really they can't, as they've been under foreign occupation or straitjacketed into a Western international order that prevents them from ever getting a proper nation-state together.
Quote from: Neil on January 27, 2012, 09:32:31 AM
But really they can't, as they've been under foreign occupation or straitjacketed into a Western international order that prevents them from ever getting a proper nation-state together.
I don't understand the bit about the Western international order.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 27, 2012, 09:14:26 AM
The absence of security and empowering of extreme forces, both consequences of a failed occupation, did.
I guess if Berkut was here he would say that it is the Iraqis fault that the occupation failed.
:P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 27, 2012, 09:19:50 AM
Quote from: Gups on January 27, 2012, 09:13:54 AM
Nature abhors a vaccum.
What's your limitation period on this one? When does it start from. Does it apply equally to apartheid, 9/11, the holocaust and colonialism?
I don't understand the question.
You said there has to be a statute of limitations for this kind of thing. A statute of limitations draws a line in the sand saying you can't be blamed for events that happen x years for your actions. I was asking what number you had for x.
If you don't have one that's fine.
For the record, I'd be much more sympathetic to the argument that if Afghanistan goes to pot once the US leaves, it's the Afghans' own fault.
As for ex-colonial states generally, how long can they continue to blame their problems on their ex-masters? I think it depends on the nature of the colonial relationship and the type and quality of colonial administration. However, even in the most abusive cases, there does come a time when the sins of yesteryear's occupier can no longer be used to assign blame to today's problems.
If Africa is an example then the US will be blamed the next 50 years at least. And since the US used to be officially against colonialism... well that just makes it all the more sweet, non?
Quote from: Gups on January 27, 2012, 10:40:52 AM
You said there has to be a statute of limitations for this kind of thing. A statute of limitations draws a line in the sand saying you can't be blamed for events that happen x years for your actions. I was asking what number you had for x.
If you don't have one that's fine.
I don't have a number for x. I think it has more to do with the number of election cycles.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on January 27, 2012, 10:49:33 AM
As for ex-colonial states generally, how long can they continue to blame their problems on their ex-masters? I think it depends on the nature of the colonial relationship and the type and quality of colonial administration. However, even in the most abusive cases, there does come a time when the sins of yesteryear's occupier can no longer be used to assign blame to today's problems.
As long as they need to. I am reminded of Haiti, France still takes alot of heat for the problems there and in some cases rightfully so...but of course then one looks at the policies of the Toussaint L'Ouverture: military dictatorship, keeping his people enslaved for the benefit of the army for all intents and purposes, and so forth. And well that sounds like every Haitain leader for the past 200 years to me. It seems to be that a big reason the French are still the bad dudes is because the Haitians just cannot blame the great hero Toussaint L'Ouverture despite the very obvious damage he did to the country he founded. I wonder if similar dynamics are at play for other former colonies who still blame their problems on their former oppressors.
I love the ever-changing rethorics on Iraq:
Jingo: We go to Iraq because Saddam supported AQ.
RoTW: No he didn't.
Jingo: But he has WMDs!.
*invasion happens*
RoTW: Turns out he didn't.
Jingo: But it was worth it to topple Saddam and turn Iraq into a stable democratic state!
RotW: Okaaaay...
*trillions of dollars and thousands of dead US troops later*
Jingo: Yes, we won the war! Let's get out of Iraq!
RotW: Bbbbut Iraq is nothing close to a stable democratic state! It's worse than it was before the invasion.
Jingo: It was never our goal to turn Iraq into a stable democratic state.
Quote from: Martinus on January 27, 2012, 10:58:58 AM
Jingo: Yes, we won the war! Let's get out of Iraq!
That has been my stance for years: claim victory and go home.
But you have it wrong on Jingo in this case. He wanted to stay in Iraq forever.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 27, 2012, 09:35:31 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 27, 2012, 09:32:31 AM
But really they can't, as they've been under foreign occupation or straitjacketed into a Western international order that prevents them from ever getting a proper nation-state together.
I don't understand the bit about the Western international order.
The West has done a fair bit to try and curb the ethnic cleansing on which a sucessful old-world state must be based.
Quote from: Valmy on January 27, 2012, 10:55:12 AMthen one looks at the policies of the Toussaint L'Ouverture: military dictatorship, keeping his people enslaved for the benefit of the army for all intents and purposes, and so forth. And well that sounds like every Haitain leader for the past 200 years to me. It seems to be that a big reason the French are still the bad dudes is because the Haitians just cannot blame the great hero Toussaint L'Ouverture despite the very obvious damage he did to the country he founded. I wonder if similar dynamics are at play for other former colonies who still blame their problems on their former oppressors.
Hmm...
Saint-Domingue was an incredibly violent society which thrived only thanks to the labour, and death, of thousands of slaves, which produced nothing except sugar, and which, in the last decades of the 18th century, saw the importation of more African slaves from dozens of different tribes than ever before in its history, who joined on plantations creoles who had never seen Africa. When the uprising began, tons of planters fled to Cuba, Florida and Louisiana. The fights of the Revolution brought division between royalists and republicans, between radicals and girondins, who in turn used and exploited divisions between free men of colour, creoles slaves and newcomer slaves. The British invaded. The French invaded. The Americans and Spanish threatened invasion.
Something tells me Toussaint Louverture's job might not have been that easy.
Of course, one can find Louverture's attempt at his plantation policy strange - but we must remember that the only way planters dealt with what they perceived economic injustice between France and Saint-Domingue was because they could hope to benefit from luxury, and send their kids to France for an education. The population of Haiti could not hope for that. Food, wine, cloth had to be imported somehow. There were no alliance to keep supplying the revolters. For Toussaint - and I suspect a number of others - the plantation represented a) the only viable economic prospect in the short-term, which could both sustain the population, the army, and the economy and give Haiti its only bargaining chips and b) the only form of political and communautarian organization which existed outside of the few towns there were. In all early-modern (and modern) societies, control of population was of paramount importance. The Americans got away with it, first by the economic control of their elites (the speculation schemes), then by their own slave society, and last, because they figured the only victims of their lack of movement control would "only" be Native people.
Quote from: Valmy on January 27, 2012, 10:55:12 AMAs long as they need to. I am reminded of Haiti, France still takes alot of heat for the problems there and in some cases rightfully so...but of course then one looks at the policies of the Toussaint L'Ouverture: military dictatorship, keeping his people enslaved for the benefit of the army for all intents and purposes, and so forth. And well that sounds like every Haitain leader for the past 200 years to me. It seems to be that a big reason the French are still the bad dudes is because the Haitians just cannot blame the great hero Toussaint L'Ouverture despite the very obvious damage he did to the country he founded. I wonder if similar dynamics are at play for other former colonies who still blame their problems on their former oppressors.
This is interesting. I'm reading The Black Jacobins at the moment which is very sympathetic to Toussaint.
Quote from: Valmy on January 27, 2012, 10:55:12 AM
I wonder if similar dynamics are at play for other former colonies who still blame their problems on their former oppressors.
French Revolutionary-era Caribbean holdings and post-war African holdings are pommes and oranges.
It's a dated book from the early 80's, but try to score
The Africans by David Lamb, a former LA Times journalist; it's a quick read. You can color-code how fucked up the nations were (and are) by who colonized them, how they administrated them, and how the arranged their departures.
One of the big points I came away with was how (and this is a distinctly arguable point), the amount of indigenous participation in the infrastructure of administration directly correlated to the viability of a country's post-colonial rule; ergo, the Dutch and Portuguese had the worst record, the English arguably the best, and the French somewhere in between.
My dad's memories of working in the merchant navy during decolonisation was that the Dutch were, by some distance, the most hated colonisers. Not just in Africa either. They were absolutely detested in Indonesia.
Pretty sure that the Belgians were worse.
The funny thing is that someone thought this was a good idea.
QuoteBAGHDAD — Less than two months after American troops left, the State Department is preparing to slash by as much as half the enormous diplomatic presence it had planned for Iraq, a sharp sign of declining American influence in the country.
Officials in Baghdad and Washington said that Ambassador James F. Jeffrey and other senior State Department officials were reconsidering the size and scope of the embassy, where the staff has swelled to nearly 16,000 people, mostly contractors.
The expansive diplomatic operation and the $750 million embassy building, the largest of its kind in the world, were billed as necessary to nurture a postwar Iraq on its shaky path to democracy and establish normal relations between two countries linked by blood and mutual suspicion. But the Americans have been frustrated by what they see as Iraqi obstructionism and are now largely confined to the embassy because of security concerns, unable to interact enough with ordinary Iraqis to justify the $6 billion annual price tag.
The swift realization among some top officials that the diplomatic buildup may have been ill advised represents a remarkable pivot for the State Department, in that officials spent more than a year planning the expansion and that many of the thousands of additional personnel have only recently arrived. Michael W. McClellan, the embassy spokesman, said in a statement, "Over the last year and continuing this year the Department of State and the Embassy in Baghdad have been considering ways to appropriately reduce the size of the U.S. mission in Iraq, primarily by decreasing the number of contractors needed to support the embassy's operations."
Mr. McClellan said the number of diplomats — currently about 2,000 — was also "subject to adjustment as appropriate."
To make the cuts, he said the embassy was "hiring Iraqi staff and sourcing more goods and services to the local economy."
After the American troops departed in December, life became more difficult for the thousands of diplomats and contractors left behind. Convoys of food that were previously escorted by the United States military from Kuwait were delayed at border crossings as Iraqis demanded documentation that the Americans were unaccustomed to providing.
Within days, the salad bar at the embassy dining hall ran low. Sometimes there was no sugar or Splenda for coffee. On chicken-wing night, wings were rationed at six per person. Over the holidays, housing units were stocked with Meals Ready to Eat, the prepared food for soldiers in the field.
At every turn, the Americans say, the Iraqi government has interfered with the activities of the diplomatic mission, one they grant that the Iraqis never asked for or agreed upon. Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki's office — and sometimes even the prime minister himself — now must approve visas for all Americans, resulting in lengthy delays. American diplomats have had trouble setting up meetings with Iraqi officials.
For their part, the Iraqis say they are simply enforcing their laws and protecting their sovereignty in the absence of a working agreement with the Americans on the embassy.
"The main issue between Iraqis and the U.S. Embassy is that we have not seen, and do not know anything about, an agreement between the Iraqi government and the U.S.," said Nahida al-Dayni, a lawmaker and member of Iraqiya, a largely Sunni bloc in Parliament.
Expressing a common sentiment among Iraqis, she added: "The U.S. had something on their mind when they made it so big. Perhaps they want to run the Middle East from Iraq, and their embassy will be a base for them here."
Those suspicions have been reinforced by two murky episodes, one involving four armed Americans on the streets of Baghdad that Iraqi officials believe were Central Intelligence Agency operatives and another when an American helicopter was forced to make an emergency landing because of a mechanical failure on the outskirts of the capital on the banks of the Tigris River.
"The plane that broke down raised many questions about the role of Americans here," said Ammar al-Hakim, the leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, a leading Shiite political party and social organization. "So what is the relationship? We're still waiting for more information."
The current configuration of the embassy is actually smaller than the original plans that were drawn up at a time when officials believed that a residual American military presence would remain in Iraq beyond 2011. For instance, officials once planned for a 700-person consulate in the northern city of Mosul, but it was scrapped for budgetary reasons.
Iraq's foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, met with Mr. Jeffrey last week to discuss, among other things, the size of the American presence here. "The problem is with the contractors, with the security arrangements," Mr. Zebari said.
Mr. Jeffrey will leave the task of whittling down the embassy to his successor, as officials said he is expected to step down in the coming weeks.
"We always knew that what they were planning to do didn't make sense," said Kenneth M. Pollack, of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. "It's increasingly becoming clear that they are horribly overstaffed given what they are able to accomplish."
Mr. Pollack described as unrealistic the State Department's belief that it could handle many of the tasks previously performed by the military, such as monitoring security in northern areas disputed by Arabs and Kurds, where checkpoints are jointly manned by Iraqi and Kurdish security forces, and visiting projects overseen by the United States Agency of International Development.
Americans are also still being shot at regularly in Iraq. At the Kirkuk airport, an Office of Security Cooperation, which handles weapons sales to the Iraqis and where a number of diplomats work, is frequently attacked by rockets fired by, officials believe, members of Men of the Army of Al Naqshbandi Order, a Sunni insurgent group.
American officials believed that Iraqi officials would be far more cooperative than they have been in smoothing the transition from a military operation to a diplomatic mission led by American civilians. The expansion has exacted a toll on Iraqi government ministries, which are keen to exert their sovereignty after nearly nine years of war and occupation, and aggravated long-running tensions between the two countries.
The size of the embassy staff is even more remarkable when compared with those of other countries. Turkey, for instance, which is Iraq's largest trading partner and wields more economic influence here than the United States, employs roughly 55 people at its embassy, and the number of actual diplomats is in the single digits.
"It's really been an overload for us, for the Foreign Ministry," Mr. Zebari said of the American mission.
The problems with the supply convoys, as well as a wide crackdown on security contractors that included detentions and the confiscation of documents, computers and weapons, prompted the embassy to post a notice on its Web site warning Americans working here that "the government of Iraq is strictly enforcing immigration and customs procedures, to include visas and stamps for entry and exit, vehicle registration, and authorizations for weapons, convoys, logistics and other matters."
The considerations to reduce the number of embassy personnel, American officials here said, reflects a belief that a quieter and humbler diplomatic presence could actually result in greater leverage over Iraqi affairs, particularly in mediating a political crisis that flared just as the troops were leaving. Having fewer burly, bearded and tattooed security men — who are currently the face of America to many Iraqis and evoke memories of horrible abuses — could help build trust with Iraqis, these officials believe.
"Iraqis, as individuals, have had bad experiences with these security firms," said Latif Rashid, a senior adviser to President Jalal Talabani.
One State Department program that is likely to be scrutinized as officials consider reducing the size of the embassy is an ambitious program to train the Iraqi police, which is costing about $500 million this year — far less than the nearly $1 billion that the embassy originally intended to spend. The program has generated considerable skepticism within the State Department — one of the officials interviewed predicted that the program could be scrapped later this year — because of the high cost of support staff, the inability of police advisers to leave their bases because of the volatile security situation and a lack of support by the Iraqi government.
In an interview late last year with the American Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, a senior Iraqi official at the Interior Ministry said the United States should use the money it planned to spend on the police program "for something that can benefit the people of the United States." The official, Adnan al-Asadi, predicted the Iraqis would receive "very little benefit" from the program.
Reducing the size of the embassy might have the added benefit of quieting the anti-Americanism of those who violently opposed the military occupation.
Moktada al-Sadr, the Shiite cleric who has steadfastly railed against American influence here and whose militia fought the American military, has recently told his followers that the United States has failed to "disarm."
Mr. Sadr recently posted a statement on his Web site that read, "I ask the competent authorities in Iraq to open an embassy in Washington, equivalent to the size of the U.S. Embassy in Iraq, in order to maintain the prestige of Iraq."
I don't think there's any good reason for that huge super-embassy in Iraq. It sounds like a make-work program for diplomats and contractors.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 29, 2012, 12:04:12 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 27, 2012, 10:55:12 AM
I wonder if similar dynamics are at play for other former colonies who still blame their problems on their former oppressors.
French Revolutionary-era Caribbean holdings and post-war African holdings are pommes and oranges.
It's a dated book from the early 80's, but try to score The Africans by David Lamb, a former LA Times journalist; it's a quick read. You can color-code how fucked up the nations were (and are) by who colonized them, how they administrated them, and how the arranged their departures.
One of the big points I came away with was how (and this is a distinctly arguable point), the amount of indigenous participation in the infrastructure of administration directly correlated to the viability of a country's post-colonial rule; ergo, the Dutch and Portuguese had the worst record, the English arguably the best, and the French somewhere in between.
Indonesia's a lot better off than most African countries isn't it though? Dutch couldn't of fucked it up too bad, unless their policy there was different than in Indonesia.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 07, 2012, 07:42:56 PM
couldn't of fucked it up to bad
QuotePronunciation note
Because the preposition of, when unstressed ( a piece of cake ), and the unstressed or contracted auxiliary verb have ( could have gone, could've gone ) are both pronounced [uhv] Show IPA or [uh] in connected speech, inexperienced writers commonly confuse the two words, spelling have as of ( I would of handed in my book report, but the dog ate it ). Professional writers have been able to exploit this spelling deliberately, especially in fiction, to help represent the speech of the uneducated: If he could of went home, he would of.
:)
Quote from: Ancient Demon on February 07, 2012, 07:32:21 PM
I don't think there's any good reason for that huge super-embassy in Iraq.
Me neither; it's a super-target that can be reduced to a super-pile of rubble with super-casualties.
Quote from: Habbaku on February 07, 2012, 07:46:17 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 07, 2012, 07:42:56 PM
couldn't of fucked it up to bad
QuotePronunciation note
Because the preposition of, when unstressed ( a piece of cake ), and the unstressed or contracted auxiliary verb have ( could have gone, could've gone ) are both pronounced [uhv] Show IPA or [uh] in connected speech, inexperienced writers commonly confuse the two words, spelling have as of ( I would of handed in my book report, but the dog ate it ). Professional writers have been able to exploit this spelling deliberately, especially in fiction, to help represent the speech of the uneducated: If he could of went home, he would of.
:)
Why are you even bothering to try?
Quote from: Habbaku on February 07, 2012, 07:46:17 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 07, 2012, 07:42:56 PM
couldn't of fucked it up to bad
QuotePronunciation note
Because the preposition of, when unstressed ( a piece of cake ), and the unstressed or contracted auxiliary verb have ( could have gone, could've gone ) are both pronounced [uhv] Show IPA or [uh] in connected speech, inexperienced writers commonly confuse the two words, spelling have as of ( I would of handed in my book report, but the dog ate it ). Professional writers have been able to exploit this spelling deliberately, especially in fiction, to help represent the speech of the uneducated: If he could of went home, he would of.
:)
Oh Noes!!!
I posted in the vernacular! Woe is me! :cry:
:huh: What's your excuse for all the other errors, then?
Plus, it should have been "too" (to an excessive extent or degree; beyond what is desirable, fitting, or right) and not "to"
Blue balls.
Quote from: PDH on February 07, 2012, 08:08:14 PM
Plus, it should have been "too" (to an excessive extent or degree; beyond what is desirable, fitting, or right) and not "to"
Yes, I noticed that and fixed it already. :sleep:
Quote from: Habbaku on February 07, 2012, 08:06:34 PM
:huh: What's your excuse for all the other errors, then?
Normally I just type too fast and don't proofread.
Iraq is a Muslim country. Their prestige is non-existent.
I dunno; I'd be happy to have the Iraqis retaliate by dumping billions of dollars into the American economy.
Quote from: Kleves on February 07, 2012, 08:50:12 PM
I dunno; I'd be happy to have the Iraqis retaliate by dumping billions of dollars into the American economy.
No kidding. I wish all our enemies would build giant fucking buildings in America, which they then abandon.
Anyway, I could not possibly have more contempt for the Iraqi people.
Quote from: Kleves on February 07, 2012, 06:46:27 PM
The funny thing is that someone thought this was a good idea.
QuoteWithin days, the salad bar at the embassy dining hall ran low. Sometimes there was no sugar or Splenda for coffee. On chicken-wing night, wings were rationed at six per person.
:(
Quote from: Phillip V on February 08, 2012, 08:36:45 AM
On chicken-wing night, wings were rationed at six per person.
[/quote]
My God. :cry:
Wait, the Iraqis say a helicopter had mechanical problems and they think this noteworthy? Have ever seen a helicopter before? Or was it a plane? The report says it's a helicopter the Iraqis say it's a plane. Perhaps that's where the problem stems.