Iraq

[Mark]

Seems like we (UK and USA) should have left well alone there, Saddam wouldn't have stood for this nonsense.

[odykas]

The country is unable to defend itself even against a group of warlocks.

Well done Dubya.

[RS]

Seems like we (UK and USA) should have left well alone there, Saddam wouldn't have stood for this nonsense.

Inclined to agree.

Only a matter of time before the same thing happens in Afghanistan.

[Tazio]

We should have listened to the French in the U freain' N Security Council. Let me, with the assistance of wiki recap:


On 20 January 2003, Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said, "We think that military intervention would be the worst possible solution," Villepin went on to say that he believed the presence of UN weapons inspectors had frozen Iraq's weapons programs. France also suggested that it would veto any resolution allowing military intervention offered by the US or Britain. The most important French speech during the crisis was made by De Villepin at the Security Council on the 14 February 2003, after Hans Blix presented his detailed report. De Villepin detailed the three major risks of a "premature recourse to the military option", especially the "incalculable consequences for the stability of this scarred and fragile region". He said that "the option of war might seem a priori to be the swiftest, but let us not forget that having won the war, one has to build peace". He emphasized that "real progress is beginning to be apparent" through the inspections, and that, "given the present state of our research and intelligence, in liaison with our allies", the alleged links between al-Qaeda and the regime in Baghdad explained by Colin Powell were not established. This "impassioned" speech "against war on Iraq, or immediate war on Iraq", won "an unprecedented applause", reported the BBC's Sir David Frost (BBC News). Britain and the US sharply criticized France for this position in March 2003

Thanks Dubya Administration, and Blair should have grown a set. :dozey:

[driveace]

We don't need to go again ,the world need to realize how extreme the Taliban and Al Quida are

[Roamy]

If I recall Saddam was Sunni so here comes his guys - shooting and killing

[Roamy]

we have to stay out of the war business because we have forgotten how to WIN and I mean the western world including the EU. It started in Nam and has gotten worse as the world violence increases. The cesspool will continue to grown until it implodes. The big answer here is don't have children as we have destroyed the earth. Children don't deserve what we are leaving them.

[Mark]

If I recall Saddam was Sunni so here comes his guys - shooting and killing

Yes which was the basis of his war against Iran. But now there's a Shia government in Iraq and it's just been reported that Iranian troops have crossed the border in support of their Shia brethren.

[Starter]

The country is unable to defend itself even against a group of warlocks.

Well done Dubya.
My opinion has always been that the only reason we were in Iraq is so Bush the junior could prove that he had bigger ones than Bush the senior.

Afghanistan I pretty much supported because that was a direct link to the 9/11 business. One of the reasons, IMO, than Afghanistan is turning out badly is that we took our eye off the ball and diverted so many resources to Iraq we never were able to do a proper job.

[odykas]

If I recall Saddam was Sunni so here comes his guys - shooting and killing

A supposedly liberated and reorganized by the US country, cannot defend itself against a bunch of rebels.

Great achievement don't you think?

[schmenke]

Oil stock prices haven't looked this good in a while :)

[A FONDO]

The iraqis got good relations with Iran and agreed to build a trans pipe for their gas to Syria (and from then to the Mediterranean) so the dollar-backed terrorists are wreaking havoc. The american war machine is spreading across the world again...

[Rudy Tamasz]

If I recall Saddam was Sunni so here comes his guys - shooting and killing

Saddam wasn't really a religious fundamentalist. He was a truly bad guy, but his brand was a "secular" and "progressive" regime.

[Starter]

Saddam wasn't really a religious fundamentalist. He was a truly bad guy, but his brand was a "secular" and "progressive" regime.
It can be reasonably argued that Saddam was progressive and enlightened compared to ANY fundamentalist Islamic group.

[Rudy Tamasz]

It can be reasonably argued that Saddam was progressive and enlightened compared to ANY fundamentalist Islamic group.

Same goes for Bashar Assad. By Middle Eastern standards he's a Mr. Nice Guy. It's beyond my understanding why the West tries to topple him.

[zako85]

The hypocrisy of the American foreign policy in Iraq and Syria is astonishing. In Syria, the Americans are supporting and encouraging the rebels to take down the Assad regime, but now the Americans are also planning to help Iraq fight the same Assad-fighting rebels who slipped out of Syria into Iraq. Americans were too short sighted to see that after taking down Saddam, Iraq will fall into a lengthy sectarian conflict. But why make the same mistake again in Syria? Just admit that Putin was right all along on Syria.

[Mark]

The hypocrisy of the American foreign policy in Iraq and Syria is astonishing. In Syria, the Americans are supporting and encouraging the rebels to take down the Assad regime, but now the Americans are also planning to help Iraq fight the same Assad-fighting rebels who slipped out of Syria into Iraq. Americans were too short sighted to see that after taking down Saddam, Iraq will fall into a lengthy sectarian conflict. But why make the same mistake again in Syria? Just admit that Putin was right all along on Syria.


It does currently seem that Iran is prepared to step in to help Iraq. That being the case it would be well for the west to keep out of it. Let the middle east take care of it's own affairs.

[D-Type]

I believe that Iran is stepping in to help the Shi'a faction in Iraq. I sometimes wonder if the Americans understand the difference between Sunni and Shi'a.

[A FONDO]

The hypocrisy of the American foreign policy in Iraq and Syria is astonishing. In Syria, the Americans are supporting and encouraging the rebels to take down the Assad regime, but now the Americans are also planning to help Iraq fight the same Assad-fighting rebels who slipped out of Syria into Iraq. Americans were too short sighted to see that after taking down Saddam, Iraq will fall into a lengthy sectarian conflict. But why make the same mistake again in Syria? Just admit that Putin was right all along on Syria.
Americans will help the iraqian autorities hypocriticly, just symbolicly to keep their image of helpers. While at the same time will let their puppets do the real job against the local regime. Same thing has happened in many countries. Make a revolt against a valid government, then install your puppets. In a few years the locals abolish them, but the propaganda in the west can't confess that they spend too much money on failed military actions so they continue with the same like nothing happened.


I believe that Iran is stepping in to help the Shi'a faction in Iraq. I sometimes wonder if the Americans understand the difference between Sunni and Shi'a.
They understand it very well but they just care for their own interest. They use whoever is agreed to do the dirty job for them no matter what he actually is. In Qatar, Saudi Arabia the local religious dictators with laws and social organization from the 10th century are "very good guys" while in Lybia, Syria they are very bad and must be attacked. In Krim the people who peacefully vote in referendum are all vicious russian agents while in Kiev the extreme nazi rioters are daredevils of the democratic values.

[Starter]

I believe that Iran is stepping in to help the Shi'a faction in Iraq. I sometimes wonder if the Americans understand the difference between Sunni and Shi'a.
Yes, we do. This is, IMO, one of the greatest threats to the world today. Not a direct threat from either toward the rest of the world. Rather a religious war between the two sects that spans a number of countries - not just in the middle east either. Triply difficult to deal with as there are no borders; no governmental bodies you can deal with and a mind set that says dying for your religion is a sure way to paradise. There also seems to little or no ethical values among the hard core concerning human life.

[schmenke]

Yes, we do. This is, IMO, one of the greatest threats to the world today. Not a direct threat from either toward the rest of the world. Rather a religious war between the two sects that spans a number of countries - not just in the middle east either. Triply difficult to deal with as there are no borders; no governmental bodies you can deal with and a mind set that says dying for your religion is a sure way to paradise. There also seems to little or no ethical values among the hard core concerning human life.

Throw in the fact that the bulk of the world’s oil supply comes from that area and the geopolitical situation becomes even more complex.

[Gregor-y]

This is actually a pretty good situation for the US. Cooperation/assent with Iran concerning Iraq helps warm the current nuclear negotiations while at the same time stretching Iran's sanctioned resources (already in Syria and Lebanon) even thinner, and increasing hostility to Iran with all the Sunni regimes. Plus the US doesn't have to spend any money or get blamed for any of the fallout (other than the initial invasion, of course). It's a strategy worthy of British foreign policy, at least before Tony Blair came along.

Of course we also have political opportunists blaming everything on the President. Even this stunning little bit of drivel (http://online.wsj.com/articles/dick-cheney-and-liz-cheney-the-collapsing-obama-doctrine-1403046522) from Dick Cheney's memory hole.

It's a compelling case for the US to participate in the International Criminal Court.