Does the USA have a responsibility to help the Iraqis?

No, seriously, what do you mean? Stop trying to be a smart ass.

 

Odon

I repeat where do you live that for you over 7000 people dying in your country from terrorist attacks is a sign of a normal and stable society?

 

ffs. When/where did I say that was 'normal'?

 

I pointed out 'normality' which you seem to be ignoring. Conveniently.

 

Odon

I suppose we’d need to define what was normal

Normal – ordinary, routine, orderly, conventional, standard.

And what was a ‘normal’ society

I mean if you wish to accept large numbers of terrorist related deaths as normal, and part of a normal and regular society I suppose you can if that is your ‘normality’ but I don’t think that is normal as in healthy.

 

Balbus

No need.

Like I said, I highlighted 'normality'.

Driving a taxi, running a pharmacy, shopping and selling used cars is 'normal'.

'' if you wish to accept large numbers of terrorist related deaths as normal, and part of a normal and regular society'

Like I said...

It is not 'normal'.

I never said it was.

Where did I say it was?

How many times do I have to say this?

 

Sorry but I think the problem was/is that it was/is ‘normal’ in Iraq for thousands to be killed in terrorist acts, I’m just saying that it isn't a sign of a ‘normal’ healthy and stable society.

Again odon you seem to be quibbling and nit-picking because you’re pissed off about something.

What is your argument in the context of the thread, you seem to be hinting that you think the invasion and occupation had no effect on later events but you have presented no coherent argument for that so far.

 

AGAIN. I never said it was. Good grief, how many times do I have to say that?

I am not nit-picking.

I am not hinting at that at all.

 

odon

Well if you say so….

Please man just go over your resent posts

So what is your argument?

I’m saying that the invasion and occupation did have an effect on later events, you seemed to take issue with that.

 

Here is an interesting article -

The sectarian myth of Iraq : We coexisted peacefully for centuries, and need neither brutal dictators nor western intervention

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/16/sectarian-myth-of-iraq

But even it says –

“The most serious sectarian and ethnic tensions in Iraq's modern history followed the 2003 US-led occupation, which faced massive popular opposition and resistance. The US had its own divide-and-rule policy, promoting Iraqi organisations founded on religion, ethnicity, nationality or sect rather than politics”

 

Don't be a **** where did I say when thousands die (etc) that is 'normal'?

Please highlight my 'nit-picking'.

There is 'normality' in Iraq. As highlighted above.

It did. No question about that. Issues 11 years later? Not so much, if at all.

 

Odon

And what is you argument for that view?

 

Read my previous posts where I mention the Iraqi government taking ownership of their country and the issues they face.

 

Odon

But as pointed out ‘we’ as in the Bush Admin fucked up badly the invasion and subsequent occupation, this had consequences – in Iraq it caused long lasting resentment and division amongst the population – In the USA is caused a war weariness and backlash against such interventions.

As I and many others said at the time - many Iraqis wanted the coalition troops to stay because they feared what might come after.
But the pressure was on in the US to get the troops home.

Of a system that was very much coloured and compromised by the occupation.

Which ‘they’ are you talking about - I’m not a supporter of the Maliki lead government and think them to blame for this present uprising.

What - you need to clarify – also what actions that can be taken have to take into account that many people will use the fuck up of the Iraqi occupation as a reason not to do it, especially boots on ground.

Its not about ‘owing’ but about responsibility – anyway give us a coherent argument – because it seems to be lacking so far.

 

Depends how you look at it. In Mosul you might drive a taxi by day and move AK-47s by night.

Or start shooting at police the moment ISIS shows up.

 

Iraq is deeply divided by religion. Sunni in the North and Shiite in the south. As bad ad Saddam was, he successfully, albeit brutally, quashed uprisings and conflicts originating between the two factions. We really should consider chopping the country up perhaps. The Kurds have been longing for independence for quite a while.

Drawing arbitrary lines and calling regions countries is absurd but that's what our leaders (...Oligarchs) have done in past decades. If we were able to better match the opposing ideologies geographically and allow each more political independence it could help belay the melee.

The real issue is the prevalence of groups like ISIS that are obsessed with creating an Islamic caliphate and imposing sharia on the rest of the world...

That being said after researching 9/11 and the inexplicable collapse of WTC7 it's not obvious to me how much of this stuff is propaganda. There are extreeeemely rich people pulling strings behind the scenes. After Iraq refusing to play ball the way we wanted them to with their oil resources, something like the recent aggression seems like a good way for someone to make money. If the US ends up with a sweet petro deal after all these transgressions we'll have more insight as to the true motives of why we went back in to save the day.

 

What has this got to do with 2014, in particular a group of Iraqi soldiers being led to their death by the extremist rebels?

And?

Perhaps this is true. We are getting somewhere. What has Maliki got to do with Tony Blair? Are you saying If not for the 2003 invasion he would not be leading the Iraqi government, and if he wasn't then a group of Iraqi soldiers would not have been led to their death by the extremist rebels?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/17/us-iraq-security-idUSKBN0EP0KJ20140617

It's a long shot, but perhaps they would not.

But, maybe they would.

How are we to know?

The Iraqi government.

What do I need to clarify?

Like I say, at this point, the Iraqi government have taken ownership of their country and the issues that occur.
The US is not responsible for what occurs in Iraq any more.

 

...or they might not.

...or they might not.

Thanks for highlighting your prejudices.

 

Did you write this in 2005?

 

Odon

Again could you please try and present a coherent argument – again you seem to be implying that when coalition troops left everything before that became null and void and of no significance to anything that came after? But at some points you seem to indicate that it is of significance.