Bagdad Falling

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
561

[quote]BPCorso wrote:
This thread blew up since the last time I checked it out. I didn’t read it all because it looks like a lot of it was not about Iraq, so forgive me if I’m rehashing old points.

To me it looks like the situation is getting clearer. Almost everyone is against ISIS except portions of marginalized Iraqi Sunnis. Even Saudi Arabia (and the other gulf arab states) and Turkey are against ISIS, realizing their expansion is not good for anyone. This could be the first time in history the USA, Gulf Arabs, Turkey, Iraq, and Iran all work together to solve a serious problem. It would be unprecedented. By “working together” I don’t mean joint military action, I just mean dialogue and sharing information.

The biggest hurdle in my opinion is for the USA to figure out how to settle this while gaining support from Iraqi Sunnis. That probably means getting rid of Maliki so that the Iraqi Sunnis have reason to fully abandon ISIS support. Replacing Maliki will probably require some top secret dialogue between Iran and the USA, but it seems doable.

My opinion is a partitioning of the country into three separate states is not feasible. I highly doubt the Sunnis will peacefully take the land in the West while the Kurds and Shias enjoy vast natural resources in the North and East. Or maybe the Sunni lands join Jordan. I think the best outcome is for unity from the USA and the major regional players to agree that ISIS is bad (already done) and to agree on a new government structure. The best may be for the three ethnic groups in Iraq to have their own semi-autonomous governments with a centralized government that would dole out revenue sharing from natural resource wealth. That could work.[/quote]

Will never work. You have tribes and factions with the Sunnis that hate each other. You are giving rational solutions to an unrational people.

562

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’ve never met a service member that joined to pad Halliburton bottom line regardless of what their civilian commanders wanted. However, almost every service member I’ve eve met joined to protect freedom or whatever freedom means to them. So to say, “Your soldiers are not fighting for the freedom of the Iraqi people, they are fighting for private interests,” to me, is not true and a vast generalization. You nor I know whether that statement is true or not, however, I’m confident the Marines that fought at Belleau Woods and the Marines that fought in Fallujah did it for the same reasons and those reason have nothing to do with “private interests” like Halliburton. [/quote]

No, the individual serviceman has only a very vague notion of why he is going out to fight. The reasons he thinks he’s fighting vary a bit from decade to decade (“glory”, “duty”, “honor”, “democracy”, “freedom”, “poontang” etc.), but the real reasons haven’t changed much in the last several thousand years.

Here’s what Smedley Butler, Major General, United States Marine Corps, had to say on the matter.

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

"I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National city Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested.

“'Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”[/quote]

So then, why did you join?[/quote]

I wanted to kill Commies.[/quote]

I don’t think you’re old enough for that reason to work…[/quote]

There were still some Commies around in 1985.

563

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

So then, why did you join?

I wanted to kill Commies.

I don’t think you’re old enough for that reason to work…[/quote]

If he were any younger, he’d have said terrorists.
[/quote]

My recollection is that at the time “Muslim terrorists” were relatively low priority. Sure, you had the Achille Lauro and TWA hijacking, and the Beirut car bombing, and of course the Teheran embassy hostage situation was still pretty fresh in people’s minds, but these were all very small potatoes when viewed against the dark and sinister menace that was the Evil Soviet Empire. I mean, with one shot, a Soviet Sukhoi pilot killed more people aboard a Korean airliner than all the terrorists in the world combined that year.

We backed a lot of questionable characters back then, like Jose Duarte in El Salvador, Saddam Hussein, the Contras in Nicaragua, and the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, primarily because, you guessed it, they were all fightin’ the Commies.

Unless you actually lived through the Cold War, you cannot imagine how seriously the threat of Communist World Domination was taken in the United States, and how thoroughly people in both countries believed the terrifying propaganda propagated by their respective governments, in an age without YouTube and Twitter.

I saw Uncommon Valor and Red Dawn and yes, Rambo First Blood Part II, and I thought, yeah, that’s what I want to do. Kill Commies. So off to the recruiter I went.

564

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

But seriously, more people have benefitted under a form of capitalism than any previous economic model. The burden falls upon you to disprove that it has been the source of the greatest good for the greater number of people. [/quote]

We’ve had our disagreements in the past, but I’m glad you post here, and I just wanted to say, agree or not (agree here) I look forward to your posts. [/quote]

Seconded.[/quote]

I missed this earlier somehow. The feeling is mutual Beans and SMH, and I’m flattered that two of the most intelligent posters on this forum hold me in such regard. My views comcerning a wide range of issues have been influenced by your well argued, respectful, and balanced analyses.

566

1029×723 148 KB

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

So then, why did you join?

I wanted to kill Commies.

I don’t think you’re old enough for that reason to work…[/quote]

If he were any younger, he’d have said terrorists.
[/quote]

My recollection is that at the time “Muslim terrorists” were relatively low priority. Sure, you had the Achille Lauro and TWA hijacking, and the Beirut car bombing, and of course the Teheran embassy hostage situation was still pretty fresh in people’s minds, but these were all very small potatoes when viewed against the dark and sinister menace that was the Evil Soviet Empire. I mean, with one shot, a Soviet Sukhoi pilot killed more people aboard a Korean airliner than all the terrorists in the world combined that year.

We backed a lot of questionable characters back then, like Jose Duarte in El Salvador, Saddam Hussein, the Contras in Nicaragua, and the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, primarily because, you guessed it, they were all fightin’ the Commies.

Unless you actually lived through the Cold War, you cannot imagine how seriously the threat of Communist World Domination was taken in the United States, and how thoroughly people in both countries believed the terrifying propaganda propagated by their respective governments, in an age without YouTube and Twitter.

I saw Uncommon Valor and Red Dawn and yes, Rambo First Blood Part II, and I thought, yeah, that’s what I want to do. Kill Commies. So off to the recruiter I went.[/quote]

Yeah, I guess there were still Commies around then. As I recall, the Berlin Wall didn’t fall until 1990 or so.

I enjoyed those movies, too. Especially Red Dawn![/quote]

Started in Austria.

Our foreign minister opened the gates to Hungary for East German tourists, the Hungarians did not really care one way or the other and once the East Germans actually got wind of that, it opened the floodgates.

The first thing when they could enter Berlin was buying bananas.

567

This hasn’t really been picked up much by the media but it’s highly significant. Al Nusra has sworn allegiance to ISIS and the two have merged:

Al Nusra will now be under the operational control of ISIS and presumably ISIS will now have access to funds from AQ central.

568

Nothing to worry about SexMachine, it’s just a few thousand terrorists. That’s all.

569

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Nothing to worry about SexMachine, it’s just a few thousand terrorists. That’s all.

http://www.businessinsider.com/isis-response-to-the-arab-spring-2014-6[/quote]

Speaking on the sidelines of the annual conference of Iran’s exiled opposition, General James Conway said the insurgents were unlikely to make any further significant gains, AFP reported.
“The worst is over,” Conway said. “The ISIS are probably surprised themselves with their degree of success.” But “they will not mess with the Kurds, they will not be able to take Baghdad and they can’t go into the south where the oil fields are because it’s all Shiite territory”.

http://www.kurdpress.ir/En/NSite/FullStory/News/?Id=7667#Title=ISIS%20cannot%20take%20Baghdad,%20will%20not%20fight%20with%20Kurds:%20US%20general

570

200 more “troops” as the article defines sent to Iraq. This brings the total deployed to 775.

Slippery slope?

571

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

200 more “troops” as the article defines sent to Iraq. This brings the total deployed to 775.

Slippery slope?[/quote]

President Obama has authorized another 200 U.S. troops to secure the American Embassy in Iraq as well as Baghdadâ??s international airport…"

SF conducting FID and forces shoring up security at vital installations. I doubt we will see a brigade combat teams being deployed.

572

^ you doubting can be alot of things. Not impossible but closer to plausible. Since, you know, Maobama has a long history of truthfulness.

573

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
^ you doubting can be alot of things. Not impossible but closer to plausible. Since, you know, Maobama has a long history of truthfulness. [/quote]

Plausible? Why would a BCT be deployed in the current political and security environment? Its a political virtue to be able to lie and be able to lie well. Universal moral principles cannot be applied to international politics in the abstract.

574

Hey, did you forecast an additional 200 troops? So I guess it takes a battalion to raise your ire?

575

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Hey, did you forecast an additional 200 troops? So I guess it takes a battalion to raise your ire?[/quote]

I had previously stated that deployment of American forces would be prudent only if they served in FID and security capacities.

576

Would a battalion guarding the embassy be prudent?

577

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Would a battalion guarding the embassy be prudent?[/quote]

If diplomatic security agents believe so, who am I to argue? Why would a battalion sized security element be an inherently shortsighted deployment of force?

578

My point is, however we categorize the escalation of troops, I don’t want this to be Bush II. I can see us having 1,000 non-combat troops (according to our dear Leader), and all of a sudden we have another military presence w/o a clear exit strategy. I care about American personnel being in harms way in that shithole in the desert.

579

I have officially changed my opinion on Isis and I have a question: Isis declared themselves a Caliphate. Should America and other nations wage war with it or should they wait until they are threatened to do so? If the “Caliphate” is attacked, will it gain support support from Jihadis across the globe, or doesn’t anyone think it has the support for this to happen? If it is allowed to exist, it could be decades before it is eradicated. It could very well end up like Hezbollah in Lebanon or the Taliban in Waziristan. What is the possibility of this happening? How can it be stopped before it does and how can it be done without alienating Muslims globally?

580

Bomb the hell out of them. Air strikes and drones. If they gain a hold in Iraq, they will have a base to launch attacks on Jordan and Isreal. This is not conjecture. These are their statements. Bomb them back to the Stone Age.