Thread: Quagmire....

It's all hugs and kisses in Iraq now. They've finally seemd to have realized the game is up.

Is that what you think? Really? That once the U.S. has left in force (they won't ever completely leave) the factions won't start at it again untill one or the other side has control of the money and power?
Such simple mindedness.

Wishful thinking. Be honest here -- you don't really care much about Iraq, but along with Sabang, Butterfly, Panda, Obs, Milkman, Ray Carey and many others, just want to see the US fail.

Am I wrong?

Well, it ain't going to happen. So gather up your pacifiers and grab a few extra diapers. It's a long walk home.

And no, the US hasn't alread failed (too obvious and too shallow). The parades will be great. Maybe we can arrange a TD meet to watch them together.

Originally Posted by Texpat

Wishful thinking. Be honest here -- you don't really care much about Iraq, but along with Sabang, Butterfly, Panda, Obs, Milkman, Ray Carey and many others, just want to see the US fail.

Am I wrong?

I can only speak for myself. Yes, I want to US to fail. The UK and the US have been doing this in Middle East for too long. '44, '53, and possibly other times we don't even know about.

Originally Posted by Texpat

The first and foremost reason for liberating Iraq was regime change. It was years in the making. Everything else was tertiary.

That may be the case but regime change certainly wasn't the first reason given.

A lot of goodwill was squandered by the constantly changing rationales, half-truths, and disinformation given.

From the same article (and link) for those that can't be bothered.

Here lies the seeds of the opposing forces - the Shiite dominated Iraqi Army and the Sunni insurgency. They see each other as hated rivals. While both dislike the Americans, the Shiites know the strategic importance of allying themselves with the American infidels, who are guests in Iraq and will depart- someday! The Sunnis are not going anywhere, neither are the Shiites. They have to settle scores and emerge victorious, if they are to have a meaningful life in the new Iraq.
The extent of the Shiites-Sunni hatred for each other is borne out by the duration and nature of the Iran-Iraq war. While it went on for eight long years costing millions of lives, the Iraqis had no qualms in using chemical weapons against the hordes of teenagers that the Iranians sent to overwhelm the Iraqi army. Now with the tables turned, the Shiites can settle their long-standing scores with the Sunnis.

While the Americans dream is a stable and democratic Iraq, the Sunnis have no interest in such a Shiite dominated Iraq, while most Shiites would also not want democracy per se, they would prefer a Shiite theocracy - a prospect which is the worst anathema for the Sunnis.

Not as simple as cowboys and indians is it Tex.
A lesson not learned in Vietnam.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

That may be the case but regime change certainly wasn't the first reason given.

I think it was the only reason given for about five years. Nobody was listening as the Frogs, Poms and Yanks were the only ones having to suffer the fool. Too bad the Internet archives don't reach that far back. Seems the collective memory of TD is faltering. I remember it well as I was living in a tent in the Saudi desert.

Originally Posted by Texpat

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

That may be the case but regime change certainly wasn't the first reason given.

I think it was the only reason given for about five years. Nobody was listening as the Frogs, Poms and Yanks were the only ones having to suffer the fool. Too bad the Internet archives don't reach that far back. Seems the collective memory of TD is faltering. I remember it well as I was living in a tent in the Saudi desert.

First we were told that Saddam was in cahoots with AQ, in league with Bin Laden, and complicit in 9/11.

Then we were told that Iraq had WMD capable of 'imminent deployment'.

Finally we were told that the Iraqi people needed to be freed from a brutal dictator and have "Freedom & Democracy(TM)" bestowed upon them.

Regime change might've been the underlying goal all along (they were super keen to tie Iraq to 9/11 any way they possible could; even at the expense of factual reality) but the point is that the deceit and lies used to effect that change was what squandered any goodwill that may have existed to that point.

Yes and the US has never wanted democracy in the Middle East. It's always wanted dictatorship. This keep the Islamic fundamentalists out of the power, the the US-backed autocratic regimes can continue the badly needed flow of oil out of the Middle East.

In Iraq, the US and the oil would be better off to have an authoritarian government that is allied economically (read: oil) to the US, suppress radical Islamic groups, quell the Sunni-Shiite split, and increase more oil output.

And that's what they had in Saddam Hussein.

Originally Posted by Texpat

I think it was the only reason given for about five years. Nobody was listening as the Frogs, Poms and Yanks were the only ones having to suffer the fool. Too bad the Internet archives don't reach that far back. Seems the collective memory of TD is faltering. I remember it well as I was living in a tent in the Saudi desert.

you are not serious or are you that delusional ? It was all about WMD. The US military is lucky to have citizens like you with such short memory, serve them perfectly for their little mind game.

But again if you didn't have short memory, you wouldn't have served in the US army.

Sorry Sputter, you're wrong. The regime change objective existed long before the idea of WMD ever cropped up. Long before. What were you doing in 1998-2000? I was over there watching the circus unfold. Nobody ever said anything about WMD. The fundamental reason for liberation was Saddam Hussein. End of story.

Never served one minute in any army, spermburper.

[quote=Texpat;680773] Nobody ever said anything about WMD. quote]

Sure....

^^ you should try taking your meds Texpat, the reason to war was all about WMD, guess you missed the memo, or was too drunk to care

Originally Posted by Milkman

Yes and the US has never wanted democracy in the Middle East. It's always wanted dictatorship.

This is one aspect of US foreign policy that really burns me up. Be it the Middle East, or Central/South America, and be it Democrats or Republicans in charge they all seem to go out of their way to prop up one dictator after another.

Seems a bit condescending to me to say we (Americans) are fit and capable of controlling our own destiny, but the rest of you lot can't.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by Milkman

Yes and the US has never wanted democracy in the Middle East. It's always wanted dictatorship.

What a patently ridiculous statement - upon what do you base that troll on, eh? Aside from your consistent anti-'merkin mind-set that is...

Read history books, like I do.

Start off with Stephen Kinzer, "All the Shah's Men."

"The Prize," by Daniel Yergin, (he won the Pulitzer prize for this)


So tell me....what books have you read aout the middle east and American foreign policy?

Go back to 1919, and start from when the nation-state of Iraq was created by Westerners in a Cairo, Egypt hotel room.

Also, read Winston Churchill......

I'm waiting...........

Milk's gone sour, a long time ago. He's in with the nutjobs and wingbats who are convinced Dubya is the devil incarnate. Milk's very proud of his ability to read. He can read! He tells us every fifth post. His mother is very proud of him. He's a high-info voter too.

And anyone less than a nuclear physicist is just mincemeat compared to his band of psychopaths and lunatics who gather to read Dr Seuess every Friday at lunch.

He's the Issues mod and therefore, informed! What a twat.

Originally Posted by Texpat

The fundamental reason for liberation was Saddam Hussein. End of story.

"Liberation"?? Please, stop it you're killing me!

Lets see who history judges correct.
I'll double down on the 1,000 baht you owe me.

It's a crying shame you'll have to admit you were routing for the wrong side for so long.
Some might forgive you.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by Texpat

The fundamental reason for liberation was Saddam Hussein. End of story.

"Liberation"?? Please, stop it you're killing me!

You like the "he tried to kill my daddy" reason better?

Actually, having Iraq the locus for GWOT is probably the main reason, plus, all that oil...

Originally Posted by Texpat

'll double down on the 1,000 baht you owe me.

What do I owe you B1,000 for?

And if you think this was all about "liberation" then you'll only ever believe the history that you're told to believe, the talior-made and edited version of history.

I was part of that history. I don't need the likes of you to tell me how it went down.