Iraq

[greg775]

So is this a big deal what is going on? Will gas prices skyrocket soon? Does the new regime have nukes, etc?

[StrangeSox]

yes, yes, yes

[greg775]

Damn. Will fuel for our cars be 5 bucks a gallon by July 4 weekend? I see the new regime are massacre-ing, beheading people after taking over cities.

[StrangeSox]

$8.87

 

edit: seriously though, no ISIS does not have any nuclear weapons, though they have captured some US-supplied heavy artillery from the retreating Iraqi army. They're not beheading people after taking over cities.

Edited June 13, 2014 by StrangeSox

[greg775]

$8.87

 

edit: seriously though, no ISIS does not have any nuclear weapons, though they have captured some US-supplied heavy artillery from the retreating Iraqi army. They're not beheading people after taking over cities.

 

Just read that on cnn or somewhere before posting. They are executing people.

[Jenksismyhero]

$8.87

 

edit: seriously though, no ISIS does not have any nuclear weapons, though they have captured some US-supplied heavy artillery from the retreating Iraqi army. They're not beheading people after taking over cities.

 

Not totally true.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-26...trol-north.html

 

In the swathe of captured territory across northern Iraq, ISIS declared hardline Sharia law, publishing rules ordering women not to go outside ‘unless strictly necessary’, banning alcohol and smoking, and forcing all residents to attend mosques five times a day. BBC correspondent Paul Wood said one woman from Mosul, Iraq’s second city, had spoken of seeing a ‘row of decapitated soldiers and policemen’.

 

The refugee woman told how the victims’ heads were placed in rows – a trademark, trophy-style execution favoured by ISIS militants.

 

edit: another one:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-26...n-Congress.html

 

Crazed: Jihadists are carrying out summary executions on civilians, soldiers and police officers including this police major -- shown shortly before he was beheaded -- after taking control of large swaths of Iraq

 

 

Edited June 13, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[Soxbadger]

In one of those rare moments in history, we dont like either side.

[Cknolls]

Majority of oil comes out of Basra. Shouldn't have too much of an effect on their capacity.

[greg775]

Militants executing people in Iraq. Can you imagine the horror if that was you and your loved ones? They lay you down on the ground and you know bullets are going to come barreling into your body killing you? f***ing assholes. May they burn forever for their mass killings. I'm so sick of brutal murders. Do you think Obama will intervene to stop these bastards?

 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/15/world/meast/....html?hpt=hp_t1

Edited June 16, 2014 by greg775

[Heads22]

It'll be interesting to see the role that Iran might take in all of this. Sounds like they have already sent some Revolutionary Guard into Iraq.

[southsider2k5]

It'll be interesting to see the role that Iran might take in all of this. Sounds like they have already sent some Revolutionary Guard into Iraq.

 

I would imagine they will defend the government.

[cabiness42]

So Iran, who hates us, is going to defend Iraq, who at least tolerates us, from Al Qaeda, who really hates us. I'm confused.

[southsider2k5]

So Iran, who hates us, is going to defend Iraq, who at least tolerates us, from Al Qaeda, who really hates us. I'm confused.

 

A weak government in Iraq means no thread of war, or interference in places like Syria when Iran flexes its muscles. They are really the only strong Muslim government left in the middle east right now. If this government falls, who knows what Iran gets. The last thing they want is their own people getting the idea of overthrowing the Irani government.

 

http://online.wsj.com/articles/islamist-re...ital-1402562192

[StrangeSox]

I'm glad all of the idiots who cheered us into this completely pointless war in the first place are being given a platform to bloviate some more.

[lostfan]

I'm glad all of the idiots who cheered us into this completely pointless war in the first place are being given a platform to bloviate some more.

It's so maddening that the media treats them like their opinions are worth listening to as well. I mean, literally, the same idiots who insisted everything was going to be fine and when they finally got embarrassed enough to say out loud the original non-plan was working, swore the surge magically fixed everything. All we got to do is stay there forever at a cost of hundreds of billions per year. Piece of cake. Let's not pretend we shook the can before we opened it though, let's act pissed that it sprayed everywhere.

[lostfan]

A weak government in Iraq means no thread of war, or interference in places like Syria when Iran flexes its muscles. They are really the only strong Muslim government left in the middle east right now. If this government falls, who knows what Iran gets. The last thing they want is their own people getting the idea of overthrowing the Irani government.

 

http://online.wsj.com/articles/islamist-re...ital-1402562192

Iraq is, perversely, a strong Iranian ally. Completely unintended consequence. Iraqis used to be terrified of the Iranians and vice versa until they got a Shia government, especially a Shia government that shut out the Sunnis (stupid, in hindsight - this is Maliki's fault though, not ours).

[bmags]

It's so maddening that the media treats them like their opinions are worth listening to as well. I mean, literally, the same idiots who insisted everything was going to be fine and when they finally got embarrassed enough to say out loud the original non-plan was working, swore the surge magically fixed everything. All we got to do is stay there forever at a cost of hundreds of billions per year. Piece of cake. Let's not pretend we shook the can before we opened it though, let's act pissed that it sprayed everywhere.

 

I mean, what we've basically found out is antagonistic dictators whom threaten war to retain strength at home are preferable to chaos, even from a human rights perspective (at this point right?) The chaos has opened up even more genocidal situations than before.

[Jenksismyhero]

I mean, what we've basically found out is antagonistic dictators whom threaten war to retain strength at home are preferable to chaos, even from a human rights perspective (at this point right?) The chaos has opened up even more genocidal situations than before.

 

Really?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_...sein's_Iraq

[cabiness42]

Thought-provoking question: Going all the way back to August 2, 1990, what thing(s) should the US have done differently and what would Iraq look like today if the US had followed that course?

[bmags]

Really?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_...sein's_Iraq

 

Considering what might be to come, yeah. We are probably already at about 130k deaths, if not more. And apparently ISIS will try to enflame the Shiites into attacking Sunnis and start this up again.

[southsider2k5]

Considering what might be to come, yeah. We are probably already at about 130k deaths, if not more. And apparently ISIS will try to enflame the Shiites into attacking Sunnis and start this up again.

 

An interesting counter-factual would have been how long Hussien would have lasted with either no second war, and/or no first war. After seeing what happened in Eygpt, Syria, Urkraine, and Lbyia, for example, I am fairly sure Hussein still wouldn't be in power, and if that was the case, Iraq would have melted down. Without intervention, the same undercurrent of boiling civil strife and ethnic hatreds would have been still there to explode given the chance.

 

It is impossible to say for sure what would have happened, but it isn't too hard to see a scenario very similar to this having happened in Iraq.

[lostfan]

An interesting counter-factual would have been how long Hussien would have lasted with either no second war, and/or no first war. After seeing what happened in Eygpt, Syria, Urkraine, and Lbyia, for example, I am fairly sure Hussein still wouldn't be in power, and if that was the case, Iraq would have melted down. Without intervention, the same undercurrent of boiling civil strife and ethnic hatreds would have been still there to explode given the chance.

 

It is impossible to say for sure what would have happened, but it isn't too hard to see a scenario very similar to this having happened in Iraq.

I'd argue the instability in Iraq contributed to that at least in part (that is virtually impossible to really argue positively though).

 

Saddam was contained but there probably would have been international pressure to end the sanctions because of the damage it was doing to Iraq's population (Saddam's abuse of them notwithstanding). That would've strengthened Saddam's hand. Iraq barely is able to function as a civil society without a strong (read: dictatorial) central government. When Saddam did have his civil institutions in place he was able to put down civil uprisings - pretty brutally too I might add.

 

Of course all this sucks, and is bad, but is probably preferable to the current situation in which the Iranians have more influence over what happens inside the country than we do, and everyone is killing everyone and jihadists control large swaths of territory.

[southsider2k5]

I'd argue the instability in Iraq contributed to that at least in part (that is virtually impossible to really argue positively though).

 

Saddam was contained but there probably would have been international pressure to end the sanctions because of the damage it was doing to Iraq's population (Saddam's abuse of them notwithstanding). That would've strengthened Saddam's hand. Iraq barely is able to function as a civil society without a strong (read: dictatorial) central government. When Saddam did have his civil institutions in place he was able to put down civil uprisings - pretty brutally too I might add.

 

Of course all this sucks, and is bad, but is probably preferable to the current situation in which the Iranians have more influence over what happens inside the country than we do, and everyone is killing everyone and jihadists control large swaths of territory.

 

Contained is a bad term for Iraq. Prior to the first Gulf War they had invaded two neighbors. After the first one, the gassed their own people. Depending on where you want to start the counter-factual timeline, it is impossible to call them "contained".

[lostfan]

Contained is a bad term for Iraq. Prior to the first Gulf War they had invaded two neighbors. After the first one, the gassed their own people. Depending on where you want to start the counter-factual timeline, it is impossible to call them "contained".

Contained, in terms of a threat to the United States. Them attacking Iran was more complicated b/c the US was cool with it, and Saddam invaded with a wink-wink-nudge-nudge from the US (cuz remember, this is on the heels of the '79 hostage standoff, so Iran was a mortal enemy).

 

You could also argue the invasion of Kuwait was a consequence of supporting Iraq against Iran. Iraq was broke and more or less trying to extort money out of Kuwait. Saddam thought, well, they supported me in the last war, and they haven't actually said they'll stop me here, so why not... That's one of those "if I knew then what I know now" moments for both sides, the U.S. probably would've been more explicit if they knew he was actually going to invade Kuwait, and Saddam probably never would've invaded Kuwait if he knew the U.S. was going to come out against him and subsequently use military force to push him back out.

[southsider2k5]

Contained, in terms of a threat to the United States. Them attacking Iran was more complicated b/c the US was cool with it, and Saddam invaded with a wink-wink-nudge-nudge from the US (cuz remember, this is on the heels of the '79 hostage standoff, so Iran was a mortal enemy).

 

You could also argue the invasion of Kuwait was a consequence of supporting Iraq against Iran. Iraq was broke and more or less trying to extort money out of Kuwait. Saddam thought, well, they supported me in the last war, and they haven't actually said they'll stop me here, so why not... That's one of those "if I knew then what I know now" moments for both sides, the U.S. probably would've been more explicit if they knew he was actually going to invade Kuwait, and Saddam probably never would've invaded Kuwait if he knew the U.S. was going to come out against him and subsequently use military force to push him back out.

 

That still doesn't stop him from getting the idea of invading someone else at some point.

 

I also really believe that eventually, that power base would have collapsed. If it can happen to Qadaffi and Assad, it can happen to anyone.