The Marquis de Leech Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Alternatively, Saddam's big crackdown on the ICP started in 1978 - it apparently being the reason the Soviets (unlike everyone else) didn't rush to support him against Iran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 No one rushed to support him against Iran. The Iran-Iraq war was an unheralded and largely unwelcome event that complicated both Cold War blocs efforts to get to grips with Iran. The Soviets still held out the possibility of achieving a modus vivendi with Tehran, while the US was still trying to free its hostages. No one was enthusiastic about the prospects of Iraqi victory, an aggrandised Iraq would be a threat to US allies and less tractable for Moscow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elder Sister Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 No way kasey kasem ever messed with ICP, dude was a total closet juggalo.Larry, this made me snort. I appreciate the effort you made in here, man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serious Callers Only Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 The more I read from him, the more convinced I am that LordArryn is engaged in some weird-ass performance art. He can perform in my ignore list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seaworth'sShipmate Posted June 17, 2015 Author Share Posted June 17, 2015 Look, Ive basically been convinced that the Iraq Invasion was a mistake, and we are suffering now for doing it. However, Im not convinced that Iraq is worse off or will be worse off in the future because of US "Intervention." Ask the Shiites and the Kurds. I think they would say they are better off now than with Saddam in power, and at some level are glad we got rid of him. True, the Shiites will want more of a theocratic, Islamic state, but if that is the "will of the people" more power to them. At the very least they are no longer faced with Sunni repression, and likely live in less of a fear driven state. I keep hearing oppononents of war concede "yes Saddam was a terrible dictator." I never realized how true that was until I actually read up on his regime. It sounds like Saddam's Iraq was basically an Arab North Korea, complete with leader worship and extravagant rallies/military parades. Any hint of dissent or imagined hint of dissent could get you a life time sentence in a torture dungeon or shot and dumped in a mass grave. Even though the region doesn't have a high standard for human rights, Saddam seems the absolute worst of the Middle east strong men, making Qadaffi, Assad, and even the Iranians seem just and reasonable by comparison. Not saying this justified our war against him, but Saddam was uniquely bad, by the standards of late 20th/early 21st century dictators. His country was the only one since World War 1 to use chemical weapons in a war (80-88 Iran war), and the only one, (apart from WW2 Japanese perhaps) to use them against civilian populations (Iranians and Kurds.) He had invaded two sovereign nations, Iran and Kuwait, and I find it hard to believe he would have acted as a stabilizing force for long, i.e, doing nothing at all until the 2011 Arab Spring. I know his army was terribly crippled after the Gulf War, but then again you never know. Personally, I don't believe ISIS's victory is at all certain in Iraq, even without US opposition. They have a ton on their plate, including that the region they control barely has functioning services/infrastructre, they have no airforce, and have to deal with Shia militias, the Kurds, and Iran, who is as much opposed to them as the West is. Even though they get plenty of alienated, extremist volunteers from abroadThey seems to have alienated all the other Sunni Arab states, and will likely incur the wrath of Jordan, Turkey and Saudi Arabia if it looks like they'll be a threat. What Im saying is, while it may have been a mistake, there are several silver linings in the grey cloud of 2003 Iraq war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The guy from the Vale Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 The Shiites and the Kurds certainly favor Saddam being gone. That said, they now face an even greater threat in Daesh. While the Shiites can probably get enough help from Iran to survive, the situation of the Iraqi Kurds is dire, not the least because their largest city, Mosul, is now in Daesh hands. The US managed to get them out of the pan... but then threw them directly into the fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seaworth'sShipmate Posted June 17, 2015 Author Share Posted June 17, 2015 The Shiites and the Kurds certainly favor Saddam being gone. That said, they now face an even greater threat in Daesh. While the Shiites can probably get enough help from Iran to survive, the situation of the Iraqi Kurds is dire, not the least because their largest city, Mosul, is now in Daesh hands. The US managed to get them out of the pan... but then threw them directly into the fire. More dire? You sure about that? Its hard to say who is more ruthless between ISIS and Saddam. True Saddam didn't practice slavery or crucifixions, but his forces raped plenty of people and gassed and killed them as well. ISIS seems more disorganized than Saddam's army, and though it has a lot of heart, less equipment. Is it really more powerful than the Iraqi army and Shia militas? It will be tough going after the Kurds on their own territory and without an airfare. Btw, blame Obama for not arming the Kurds and not really making a serious effort to top ISIS. Can you really call the current effort serious? I think the most powerful way to defeat ISIS, is not necessarily conquer that region, just damage it enough to send the message to Islamist extremists everywhere that the Islamic State is indeed a fantasy and there is no realistic chance of it getting off the ground. Right now, plenty are convinced it could succeed which is why it draws so many people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 not necessarily conquer that region, just damage it enough to send the message to Islamist extremistshow in the world is this a serious proposal? both conquest and destruction of the region are absolutely unlawful as well as not reasonably related to the alleged objective of deterring 'extremism.' why not in the alternative leave em alone for the first time in several hundred years? seriously, y'all motherfuckers bombed the fuck outra iraq for decades now, and afghanistan, and libya, and the sudan, and wherever else. you keep sending the same message; i do not think it means what you think it means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seaworth'sShipmate Posted June 17, 2015 Author Share Posted June 17, 2015 not necessarily conquer that region, just damage it enough to send the message to Islamist extremistshow in the world is this a serious proposal? both conquest and destruction of the region are absolutely unlawful as well as not reasonably related to the alleged objective of deterring 'extremism.' why not in the alternative leave em alone for the first time in several hundred years? seriously, y'all motherfuckers bombed the fuck outra iraq for decades now, and afghanistan, and libya, and the sudan, and wherever else. you keep sending the same message; i do not think it means what you think it means. Because it would create a base for them to recruit and train. Conquest and destruction are very lawful if done in self-defense. We have to destroy the islamic state, an unlawful insurgency that has declared war on USA. Once they declare they are peaceful and take steps to be so, than fine. We should not leave them alone, because they are committed to never leaving us alone. We left the Taliban alone just fine before 9/11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 no, conquest is always unlawful. destruction of the region will not be necessary or proportionate, if the US is self-defending by attacking ISIS (less plausible than self-defending contra iraq, as you have conceded by arguing that saddam is more dangerous).you aided the taliban, aye? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relic Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 no, conquest is always unlawful. destruction of the region will not be necessary or proportionate, if the US is self-defending by attacking ISIS (less plausible than self-defending contra iraq, as you have conceded by arguing that saddam is more dangerous).you aided the taliban, aye? why bother? to read your own words back to yourself and say "that was a finely wrought statement!". Deaf ears, my friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seaworth'sShipmate Posted June 17, 2015 Author Share Posted June 17, 2015 no, conquest is always unlawful. destruction of the region will not be necessary or proportionate, if the US is self-defending by attacking ISIS (less plausible than self-defending contra iraq, as you have conceded by arguing that saddam is more dangerous).you aided the taliban, aye? No. Reagan aided the Mujhadeen briefly, aid which started under Carter. What do you do about ISIS? Allow them to continue expanding and allowing more crazy converts to join? I think the organization has to be taken out some way or another, and just send the message that the idea of a Sunni caliphate, like the ones of the 6-700s is impossible. I think also maybe we could set up "Freedom museums" to educate them about American virtues and history. That might change some things. Maybe introduce alcohol, ham sandwhiches and "Sharia free zones." For the record it wouldn't be "conquest" it would be assisting the Iraqi government in putting down an unlawful insurgency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 the US did not fund the taliban to eradicate opium cultuvation? the US did not propose a deal to the taliban regarding pipelines from central asia, 'accept a carpet of gold or receive a carpet of bombs'? these were not transactions and occurrences in early 2001?relic, i am nothing if not quixotic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seaworth'sShipmate Posted June 17, 2015 Author Share Posted June 17, 2015 the US did not fund the taliban to eradicate opium cultuvation? the US did not propose a deal to the taliban regarding pipelines from central asia, 'accept a carpet of gold or receive a carpet of bombs'? these were not transactions and occurrences in early 2001?relic, i am nothing if not quixotic. your one of those "conspiracy nuts huh?" If so so much the better, the US could always use more wealth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Serious question - how bad was repression of Shiites during Saddam's reign? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 hmm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 your one of those "conspiracy nuts huh?" If so so much the better, the US could always use more wealth This kind of offensively ignorant, arrogant, jingoistic pap is a large part of the reason Why They Hate Us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relic Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 your one of those "conspiracy nuts huh?" If so so much the better, the US could always use more wealthyeah, it says so right in the Bible! Jesus whips the money-lenders and shouts " get thee to the lands beyond the vast sea,where the gold is free! " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 the weird thing is that i support, in world historical geopoltical terms, the use of the US military to destroy the world's rightwing. it's just that i reserve the right to condemn the US for unlawful use of force, imperialism, and so on in the course of doing same. similarly, the US should be required to remove dictators it has installed, and then we hang the removers along with the installers. it is thoroughly dialectical--the confrontation of right against right. between equal rights, yo, force decides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 similarly, the US should be required to remove dictators it has installed, and then we hang the removers along with the installers. With the Philippines, the US was kind enough to loan Ferdinand Marcos a few military transports to bring out the billions of dollars he'd looted from the treasury. So that was nice of them. Reagan sure was loyal to his leftist-murdering totalitarian kleptocrat pals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.