So, that whole Iraq invasion thing was a good idea then...

[englishpremier]

This thing about "Iraqis" seems to underline a fundamental problem that most people have no clue about.

Most of these middle eastern countries aren't nation states in any way that we'd recognize. Half of the people hate each other and are rival warring groups, they were only held together by dictators and now the dictators are gone it's just carnage.

This is why elections there are pointless.

You get this problem in Africa where empire building countries basically took over a territory and called it a country, paying no attention to the differences between tribes that inhabited that land.

The best solution would be to divide the land into separate states based on the different groups there e.g sunni and shi'ite

 

[Craterloads]

The terms Al Qaeda and Jihadi has pretty much lost all meaning from incorrect overuse.

Heck poor villagers defending their country, peaceful protestors defending themselves all get the label when it suits peoples agendas. Whether that be the Syrian government labelling all protestors terrorist Al Qaeda operators or the US labelling villagers or anyone who opposes their occupations as such.

 

[Craterloads]

Which is misleading as a big chunk of that 40% are the Kurds who are also opposed to Saddam. Its not a slight majority its a rather large majority.

Yes it is misleading as like I said earlier belonging to a different group does not automatically result in opposing Saddam. People within them groups could and will have supported Saddam. Secondly it not really any of our business, and my point about people wanting us to go in still stands.

Yes... they have a democracy - they had both Shia and Sunni politicians in prominent roles and they screwed it up...

Did they ask for democracy? Did they want democracy? Perhaps the of forcing democracy down the barrel of a gun is what they learnt from the US/UK and are now just continuing in this form of democracy shown by the UK/US? It's not like we led by example is it?

What outside groups are we supporting?

The entire saddam government opposition, including militias.

 

[jasonmorris]

I presume you are joking about your statement regarding "Blair and Bush being war criminals..from a Muslim"? If not then you really should educate yourself about the last 20 years of conflict.

 

[Danny75]

not sure what you are getting at but its based on a lot of nonsence

I disagree, GTTC. It's based on facts, you can look them up (Obama declaring that "moderates" will be armed, the US turning down Maliki's requests for air strikes on ISIS thereby allowing them to grow stronger over the last month, etc).

Could my musings, which include (but not solely) the possibility of the US being behind this, be wrong? Yes. They are just musings. It could be a genuine uprising.

But just look at history (Operation Gladio etc). The West has financed/armed terrorist groups in the past, for their own purposes. Then you have Israel, that did the same with Hamas.

"Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel's creation," says Mr. Cohen, a Tunisian-born Jew who worked in Gaza for more than two decades. Responsible for religious affairs in the region until 1994, Mr. Cohen watched the Islamist movement take shape, muscle aside secular Palestinian rivals and then morph into what is today Hamas, a militant group that is sworn to Israel's destruction.

Instead of trying to curb Gaza's Islamists from the outset, says Mr. Cohen, Israel for years tolerated and, in some cases, encouraged them as a counterweight to the secular nationalists of the Palestine Liberation Organization and its dominant faction, Yasser Arafat's Fatah.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB123275572295011847

It's actions like these which you are discounting, and keep being repeated throughout history. They don't immediately seem to be in the interests of the sponsor... but time always tells. And sometimes it backfires, as well.

 

[Tuppy_Glossop]

The best solution would be to divide the land into separate states based on the different groups there e.g sunni and shi'ite

Doesn't always work, though. Remember South Sudan ? Seemed fine for a year then kicked off again.

 

[dowie]

Yes it is misleading as like I said earlier belonging to a different group does not automatically result in opposing Saddam.

You seemed to be relying on that assumption when you said

Perhaps, did they want the US/UK to go in? It's a 60/40 split or there abouts, why is it our concern what a not too great majority wants half way around the world?

and tbh... I reckon you'd be hard pressed to find many Kurds in favour of Saddam... he didn't have much Shia support either - the demographics aren't a bad estimate

Did they ask for democracy? Did they want democracy? Perhaps the of forcing democracy down the barrel of a gun is what they learnt from the US/UK and are now just continuing in this form of democracy shown by the UK/US? It's not like we led by example is it?

They're not really following any example form the US/UK - they've not been able to shake off their tribal ways... And yes it would have been wrong of us to simply install say a Shia dictator.... You'd also still end up with the same issue of Sunni militants kicking off which we've got at the moment.

The entire saddam government opposition, including militias.

erm there isn't a Saddam govt or Saddam govt opposition.... We support the current Iraqi govt yes... not outside elements... you'll find it is elements from other countries in the region contributing to the destabilisation of Iraq... supporting the current regime doesn't tend to destabilise a country.

 

[Danny75]

ISIS control northern Syria. They don't recognise the national borders of Iraq or Syria, so why would they need to conquer the whole of Syria? Their territory runs through both.

They used to control northern Syria. Not anymore. The Islamic Front and the Free Syrian Army and others have kicked them out. They've been fighting for months.

http://www.clarionproject.org/news/syrian-rebel-forces-fight-expel-foreign-jihadis

 

[gettothechopper]

I disagree, GTTC. It's based on facts, you can look them up (Obama declaring that "moderates" will be armed, the US turning down Maliki's requests for air strikes on ISIS thereby allowing them to grow stronger over the last month, etc).

Could my musings, which include (but not solely) the possibility of the US being behind this, be wrong? Yes. They are just musings. It could be a genuine uprising.

But just look at history (Operation Gladio etc). The West has financed/armed terrorist groups in the past, for their own purposes. Then you have Israel, that did the same with Hamas.



It's actions like these which you are discounting, and keep being repeated throughout history. They don't immediately seem to be in the interests of the sponsor... but time always tells. And sometimes it backfires, as well.

you are making the same mistake as people who say "that the west never arms / supports groups" - but in the other direction

just because they have done things like this in the past doesnt mean that every single bad thing that ever happens ever again is the west behind pulling strings

the people the US wanted to help in Syria, are the pro west groups who want democracy - (the ones protesting peacefully at the start of all this - who Assad cracked down on heavily)

The pro Jihad / AQ / Islamist groups have appeared due to OUR lack of intervention - (as they did in Aghan in the late 90's) these groups form when people are desperate or countries are unstable and its our lack of help that helps them to take root
The West has no interest in arming / helping these groups - these are the people we having been fighting for years and would still be fighting now if any will still remained (which it doesnt)

the airstrike refusal is because it would be seen as politcal suicide to renew US force in Iraq at the moment ("oh look they are back bombing Iraq AGAIN") the US cannot win - dammed either way

 

[Craterloads]

You seemed to be relying on that assumption when you said

Context, you said "most of the population is Shia and wanted Saddam gone... " to which I replied it was more a 60/40 split, and which is factually accurate and puts into context your statement. Not that that actually justifies the war.

and tbh... I reckon you'd be hard pressed to find many Kurds in favour of Saddam... he didn't have much Shia support either - the demographics aren't a bad estimate

Unfortunately your guestimates are not something I'm willing to count on, nor does the fact either way justify any of the action. How do you go from that to them wanting US/UK forces to invade and brutally destroy large parts of their country?

They're not really following any example form the US/UK - they've not been able to shake off their tribal ways... And yes it would have been wrong of us to simply install say a Shia dictator.... You'd also still end up with the same issue of Sunni militants kicking off which we've got at the moment.

I think they done a good job don't you think, everything through the barrel of a gun? I'd say they are following the example of the US/UK down to a T. How about we not install anything and not play god?

erm there isn't a Saddam govt or Saddam govt opposition.... We support the current Iraqi govt yes... not outside elements... you'll find it is elements from other countries in the region contributing to the destabilisation of Iraq... supporting the current regime doesn't tend to destabilise a country.

Oh so you only start counting when we remove the government we don't like and install the government we do like? I see, cheating a little bit isn't it? Anyhow I was referring to outsiders influencing the fate of the country, which we were number one.

 

[Terminal_Boy]

I am sure the Chilcot inquiry will reveal all we need to know.

In about 50 years time..

 

[Danny75]

you are making the same mistake as people who say "that the west never arms / supports groups" - but in the other direction

just because they have done things like this in the past doesnt mean that every single bad thing that ever happens ever again is the west behind pulling strings

That's not an accurate reflection of my position though, is it? I'm not arguing for one extreme, but for more than one possibility to be considered. You don't need to lecture me about bad things happening without the west pulling strings, really. It should be possible to talk about the possibility, given history, without people assuming you see NATO etc under your bed...

the people the US wanted to help in Syria, are the pro west groups who want democracy - (the ones protesting peacefully at the start of all this - who Assad cracked down on heavily)

The pro Jihad / AQ / Islamist groups have appeared due to OUR lack of intervention - (as they did in Aghan in the late 90's) these groups form when people are desperate or countries are unstable and its our lack of help that helps them to take root
The West has no interest in arming / helping these groups - these are the people we having been fighting for years and would still be fighting now if any will still remained (which it doesnt)

the airstrike refusal is because it would be seen as politcal suicude to renew US force in Iraq at the moment ("oh look they are back bombing Iraq AGAIN") the US cannot win - dammed either way

Sounds good. And yet they go to war whenever they like, and carry out drone strikes, and put up with the criticism. You might be right about the motive for it, but there might be another reason for the lack of air support, i.e. that they want to let this play out a bit more.

 

[TwsT]

Forgot to wind the clock forward 1400 years so naturally democracy fell apart and the people that had been quiet for 30 years felt it appropriate to start the religious not so civil war back up again.

 

[gettothechopper]

That's not an accurate reflection of my position though, is it? I'm not arguing for one extreme, but for more than one possibility to be considered. You don't need to lecture me about bad things happening without the west pulling strings, really. It should be possible to talk about the possibility, given history, without people assuming you see NATO etc under your bed...



Sounds good. And yet they go to war whenever they like, and carry out drone strikes, and put up with the criticism. You might be right about the motive for it, but there might be another reason for the lack of air support, i.e. that they want to let this play out a bit more.

unfortunatley (on Ocuk) people tend to get a bit crazy with the old "it was the CIA" line and therefore maybe ive been quick to thow you in with them


I presume you are reffering to the pakistan strike ? the afghan war is still going on (for the USA where Iraq is not) and isnt tainted quite to the levels of Iraq (yet) the US will do what they can where they can when they can - and at the moment id say Iraq subject is pretty damn toxic and therefore you wont see any direct involvment again (at least for now)

 

[MookJong]

Some fascinating information on the guardian live update page. The Journalist Mona Mahmood, has been speaking to a series of people around Iraq and you get a very different picture...

An extract:

Four days ago, Maliki’s military dirty force raided Al-Razaq mosque in the city, brought a few locals whom they picked up from different parts in Samara and killed them in the mosque. What do you think the people feeling would be towards these military forces? We have lived enough years of injustice, revenge and tyranny and we can’t stand any more.

We as Sunni people have never been treated fairly by Maliki’s fanatic government and army. If it were not a sectarian army, it would have fought to the end but they fled as soon as things got serious. A friend of mine, a shopkeeper in Samara, told me the army and police have bought more than 1000 dishdash [a smock worn commonly by men in Iraq] to prepare themselves to flee in civil clothes in case they are cornered by rebels. The army’s main interest is money – most of them are militiamen not professional soldiers.

I have not seen any Isis fighters in the city. The entire resistance is now formed of local Samara men - mainly fighters with Izzat Al-Douri [Saddam Hussein’s vice president] groups, a few ex-military officers and a few others with Al-Naqashabandiyia. They are all fighting together now to reach Baghdad. These fighters have taken the weapons of the military bases without any fight in Tikrit and Mosul and can fight for years not for days.

 

[stopper]

But it was a good idea. The US have control of the oil fields so it's all ok.

Lets not forget the Rothschilds taking control of their banking system at the same time. (much bigger investment than oil)

 

[dowie]

Context, you said "most of the population is Shia and wanted Saddam gone... " to which I replied it was more a 60/40 split, and which is factually accurate and puts into context your statement. Not that that actually justifies the war.

most of the population is shia and most of them did want Saddam gone...

yes there is a 60/40 shia/sunni split - however to use that to say only a slight majority wanted Saddam gone is misleading as you don't also account for the Kurds...

Unfortunately your guestimates are not something I'm willing to count on, nor does the fact either way justify any of the action. How do you go from that to them wanting US/UK forces to invade and brutally destroy large parts of their country?

you don't and you don't have to... that's a separate matter - the UK/US didn't invade & topple Saddam to fulfill the wishes of the local population.

I think they done a good job don't you think, everything through the barrel of a gun? I'd say they are following the example of the US/UK down to a T.

They've done a rather poor job thus the farce with the deputy PM, the Sunni feeling marginalised...

Oh so you only start counting when we remove the government we don't like and install the government we do like?

We're talking about the current Iraq not Iraq as it was under the beloved dictator.... Perhaps we should have kept it as a colony/protectorate - would that be better? Why should we have changed that status quo... as a British protectorate we could easily stop uprisings, tribal violence etc... look at what happened when they were left to their own devices - Iran/Iraq war, invasion of Kuwait, gassing their own people, developing WMDs etc..etc..

I see, cheating a little bit isn't it? Anyhow I was referring to outsiders influencing the fate of the country, which we were number one.

Nope just talking about the current situation....

And you might want to re-read the post you were originally quoting. Part of the problem is regional funding to groups outside of the govt...

yes... that's part of the problem... outside interests within the region are providing funding to groups outside of the govt

Agreed, with the biggest coming from the US/UK.

which is nonsense... 'outside of the govt'.... we support the govt, to some extent... we're not trying to destabalise the country.

Regional interests funding the ISIS or the Shia Militias in the south are contributing to destbalisation.... building an army, police force, setting up elections so that a govt can be elected under a democratic system isn't the sort of thing that causes destabalisation.... when that govt then starts behaving corruptly or in such a way as to marginalise opponents then they start to create their own problems and the various other regional groups trying to exert influence over there take advantage

 

[dowie]

Lets not forget the Rothschilds taking control of their banking system at the same time. (much bigger investment than oil)

LOL what?

 

[Craterloads]

most of the population is shia and most of them did want Saddam gone...

A) Source and B) how does that translate to wanting foreign troops to invade their country. I want DC out of office, does that mean the US should send troops over? no

yes there is a 60/40 shia/sunni split - however to use that to say only a slight majority wanted Saddam gone is misleading as you don't also account for the Kurds...

That's not what I said, I never claimed anything as I have said numerous times to you that using these figures mean nothing as it doesn't inherently mean opposition to saddam, thats something you have done. I simply put into context your majority Shia wasn't that much of a greater majority. You have gone on since then to expand you have included Kurds into your figures but they are not Shia (regardless of opposition to saddam)

you don't and you don't have to... that's a separate matter - the UK/US didn't invade & topple Saddam to fulfill the wishes of the local population.

And why are you arguing for, I never claimed otherwise And not that we know that was the wish of the local population, supported by the fact they fought tooth and nail to remove occupying forces. The only chat on this matter is when I refuted someone's claims the Iraqis were clamouring on rooftops and welcomed / wanted a foreign evasion, which is ridiculous i'm sure you will agree? In an attempt to look back at our actions and pretend we did something honourable rather than the barbaric actions they were.

They've done a rather poor job thus the farce with the deputy PM, the Sunni feeling marginalised...

Yes exactly how the US/UK made the Sunnis feel when they destroyed their army, parts of their stronghold parts of the country and put the opposition in power. So again everything to a T, the Iraqis are simply following by example, democracy down the barrel of a gun and making people feel marginalised.

We're talking about the current Iraq not Iraq as it was under the beloved dictator.... Perhaps we should have kept it as a colony/protectorate - would that be better? Why should we have changed that status quo... as a British protectorate we could easily stop uprisings, tribal violence etc... look at what happened when they were left to their own devices - Iran/Iraq war, invasion of Kuwait, gassing their own people, developing WMDs etc..etc..

How about we do nothing and not inflict more pain to an already hurting country? Why play god, the people didn't ask for our help, we sold lies to the world and went ahead anyway in a, majority opinion, illegal way. Yes the Iran war where we supported this dictator in his efforts against the Iranian people because we didn't like them at the time.

Nope just talking about the current situation....

Fitting, wash our hands of any responsibility and sit back pointing fingers. Act like we did everything we could do to help these poor people and pretend we are not partly responsible for all the death and destruction.

And you might want to re-read the post you were originally quoting. Part of the problem is regional funding to groups outside of the govt...

which is nonsense... 'outside of the govt'.... we support the govt, to some extent... we're not trying to destabalise the country.

Yes that is why I broadened the scope to pre-war and during war, never claimed we are trying to destabilise the country now as we already did it. There would be no need to stabilise anything if we didn't launch the brutal war that has costs the lives of hundreds of thousands of people whom many are still dying to this day as a result.

Regional interests funding the ISIS or the Shia Militias in the south are contributing to destbalisation.... building an army, police force, setting up elections so that a govt can be elected under a democratic system isn't the sort of thing that causes destabalisation.... when that govt then starts behaving corruptly or in such a way as to marginalise opponents then they start to create their own problems and the various other regional groups trying to exert influence over there take advantage

Building all these things off the dead bodies of the former government kind of defeats the purpose not to mention down the barrel of a gun. Destroying all them things in the first place, makes any building efforts redundant.

 

[dowie]

A) Source and B) how does that translate to wanting foreign troops to invade their country. I want DC out of office, does that mean the US should send troops over? no

I didn't say it should... I said they wanted Saddam gone, they also wanted the US/UK to not stick around

That's not what I said, I never claimed anything as I have said numerous times to you that using these figures mean nothing as it doesn't inherently mean opposition to saddam, thats something you have done. I simply put into context your majority Shia wasn't that much of a greater majority. You have gone on since then to expand you have included Kurds into your figures but they are not Shia (regardless of opposition to saddam)

I'm well aware they're not Shia... I was pointing that out to you as you were previously using the 60/40 figure in the same context... hopefully that is cleared up now... most of the population were not saddam supporters and it wasn't just a slight majority

Yes exactly how the US/UK made the Sunnis feel when they destroyed their army, parts of their stronghold parts of the country and put the opposition in power. So again everything to a T, the Iraqis are simply following by example, democracy down the barrel of a gun and making people feel marginalised.

hardly... they had free elections, Sunnis were elected too... They've chosen to hang onto the old tribal rivalries

How about we do nothing and not inflict more pain to an already hurting country? Why play god, the people didn't ask for our help, we sold lies to the world and went ahead anyway in a, majority opinion, illegal way. Yes the Iran war where we supported this dictator in his efforts against the Iranian people because we didn't like them at the time.

So we should have left it as a British protectorate then? Or are you advocating for a war mongering dictator?

Yes that is why I broadened the scope to pre-war and during war, never claimed we are trying to destabilise the country now as we already did it. There would be no need to stabilise anything if we didn't launch the brutal war that has costs the lives of hundreds of thousands of people whom many are still dying to this day as a result.

that's a bold claim given what is currently happening in that part of the world - have you completely missed what happened in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Syria...

Building all these things off the dead bodies of the former government kind of defeats the purpose not to mention down the barrel of a gun. Destroying all them things in the first place, makes any building efforts redundant.

No it doesn't - at what point do you go back... as if Saddam had a good thing going in the first place? Everything was fine under the kind dictator.... you're living in a dream world if you think that only the infidel invasion has caused problems over there