Does the USA have a responsibility to help the Iraqis?

Fair enough.

But America is doing other things around the world a lot more erm 'strange' than Russian jets flying not that close to California (more Alaska)...

 

The entire lot of all Humanity is cuckoo. Except for Estonians.

 

The formula of the past is for the few people controlling 50% of the world's wealth to install a dictator of their choosing who will play nice with the powers at be in Europe and the US. As long as you choose correctly and the puppet can dance you end up being able to control oil production and therefore cash flow. For the Oligarchs at the top it's all about control, establishing a one world government and a one world currency and then monetizing every possible resource.

When someone like Saddam pulls all the brakes on oil sale and production, starts selling it for euros instead of the petro dollar, the people who control the petro dollar (Federal Reserve) get very disgruntled. Their domination of the economy is put in jeopardy. The same thing happened with Gaddafi. He was pushing a gold standard currency for North Africa very, very hard. People were starting to listen to him and then we funded enough power hungry rebels in Libya to overthrow him and basically gank the shit out of him.

Simply put, and organized bunch controls more than half the resources of the world and YOU. CANNOT. COMPETE. Whoever you are they own all the pieces on the board of the world. They will not tolerate deviation from their plans as long as they have the power (they have basically unlimited power). A rogue Iraq is not part of their plan.

Problem, reaction, solution. That's the model. They fucked up reallllly badly by demolishing World Trade Center 7, the 47 story build in the vicinity of the twin towers, and letting people get it on film. There's some very hard evidence out there now of their plot. There's good evidence to believe Osama Bin Laden was a puppet of the CIA. It's entirely possible, thought I haven't seen any evidence, that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is of the same vein. In the aftermath and wreckage of ISIS there's no telling what the final outcomes are. New loyal dictator? Permanent US residence due to unforeseen existential threats? The reaction and solution are as of now unclear.

This situation seems impossibly black and white. The bad guys are legit terrorists releasing Hollywood style, True Liesesque highlight reels. It feels too perfect, too easy to garner support from the US public. I predict it will be clear we have to do something to stop the spread, and the US military will end up getting what they went to Iraq for in the first place. Just a bit of speculation based on past events.

The Rothschilds profited greatly from the sinking of the Titanic. It sank in nearly identical fashion to the Titan. An identical ship from the novel "Futility, or the Wreck of the Titan" written several years before the Titanic was built. Malaysia Airlines 370 was a similarly profitable tragedy for the Rothschilds as detailed in the video below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKwXDL7loLc

They always seem to get their way. When you dominate the planet's financial markets the way they do, and own the media it's entirely feasible... and profitable. I expect no less in our current environment.

 

Thanks for that, Yert.

A little too 'cuckoo' for my taste, to be honest.

It's telling you didn't mention anything specific with regards to this particular thread.

I got as far as 'Problem, reaction, solution. That's the model. ' and just had to give up on it.

Thank you for expanding - but it is a lot of ****** imho.

 

So, if we (no one) can compete and the game is totally rigged.... is your take that it's already done and then there is no point to anything? You know, it's rigged. It's over. Played out. Time to give up and move on?
Or....what?

See, my thing is, I don't doubt some of the things you mentioned in your entire long post (I did read all of it, I just quoted the part I wanted your take on)---- But, see, I refuse to believe that the people-any people-wanting these things- can or will achieve them. I chose to believe, to the extent of exactly what I believe, which I'm sure is some the same as you....and some way different..... that nothing is over and done. No done deal in my eyes. I'm not worried.

But you're saying, there is no point? Does that type of negativity do anything to change any pieces?

 

Has the OP question, "Does the USA have a responsibility to help the Iraqis?", already been agreeably answered to everyones satisfaction? If so I must have missed it as it appears to no longer be the topic of discussion.

 

Affirmative here and here.

 

What would "help" mean? Iraq is an expression for three distinct regions of rival ethnic populations who don't get along. They were yoked together under a common government by colonial powers. Later, they were kept together under the rule of the minority Sunni by brute force under Saddam Hussein. Bush toppled him and set up a "democratic" government, which meant, in practice, rule by the largest ethnic group, the Shiites. The pro-Iranian Shiite government excluded the Sunnis from power. Hence the success of the Sunni ISIS military, in what is to some extent a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. This is a fundamentally unstable situation, and all those years of trying didn't make it better. If we intervene now, how would we put Humpty Dumpty back together again any better than we did before?

 

The USA isn't going to do anything it doesn't want to. It doesn't matter if we have a responsibility or not to the Middle East, The US is too damn selfish. However, The Middle East has been nuts forever, take a look at history! Looking at all the insanity that's been going down lately, and has been off and on since Pangaea (I know, exaggeration), that's not changing anytime soon. I say we let the Middle East figure their stuff out and focus on Kim Jong Un. The guy is literally modern Hitler, and nobody does jack shit to stop it. Its evil. He needs to be taken out of power, and their governmental system needs destroyed. Ugh. I hate politics because humans are just evil. Why can't anyone figure anything out man?

 

In current events, I presume "help" means to deescalate.

 

I believe the question asked "Does the USA have a responsibility to help...?".

 

You, my friend, are delusional. You are so superior that I can't even hear you from down here.

 

odon

To repeat - it is not about ownership but responsibility.

To repeat – you seem to want to say this bit of history stops there and a new history starts here – and as I said that’s just plain silly.

You are mixing up the specific and the general – you can look at the general themes that underlay the rise of the jihadist movement, Afghan resistance soviet invasion, the role of Saudi financed Wahhabism, Sunni grievances in Iraq, and why Iraq has come to this point – but that doesn’t mean a specific group will or will not do something specific.

All I can say is that if mistakes are made and not rectified then it is likely to end with bad things happening.

I have suggested nothing of the sort, I’m just pointing out that to me having 7000 people die from terrorism in your country should NOT be seen of as ‘normal’.

And if you are saying that having to go in air raid shelters is the definition of abnormality then I’d point out that in London during the period of the blitz between the raids people still drove taxi’s and went shopping and ambulances went out even when the bombs were dropping -all of which you said was a sign of ‘normality’.

Then why did you present it as a counter argument, to the argument that Iraq was a troubled state?

Sorry but I’m still not sure what your argument is – it seems to be that if small ‘normal’ things go on a larger ‘abnormal’ situation is somehow made ‘normal’ – and to me that doesn’t seem to make sense.

 

Okiefreak

Liked the post and I agree with a lot of it, but -

My argument is that the neo-cons in control at the beginning of the occupation didn’t seem to want to be trying to ‘make it better’ for the Iraqis their agenda was more about pursuing what they saw as American interests.

Again I’d suggest a reading Imperial life in the Emerald City by Rajiv Chandrasekaran)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Imperial-Life-Emerald-City-Baghdads/dp/0747592896"]Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Baghdad's Green Zone: Amazon.co.uk: Rajiv Chandrasekaran: Books


I remember at the time people pointing out that given the animosity that could be roused between the groups that the situation had to be handled carefully – it wasn’t.

What good will the coalition gained for toppling Saddam was soon pissed up against the wall.

Politically it was pointed out that Shia dominance would stoke up ill will if it was allowed to be used against the other groups Kurd and Sunni, but while the Kurds had virtual autonomy in their main population area, the Sunni didn’t and that could be where the most resentment would arise. It would have to be handled with care – it wasn’t.

At the end the American public just seemed to want out (most in the UK didn’t want in) and when they got out they seemed to wash their hands of it as in – nothing to do with us anymore we’re not there – (the Obama Admin seems to have given little thought or action to what was happening in Iraq post leave).

But I feel that we have a responsibility for what happened and is happening.

Can we help is another matter

 

At best this entire situation was a "band-aid".

When you have a region of the world whose religion or a faith is too closely tied to politics and the structure of government, a fledgling country goes through phases like this.


There is very little chance that on a macro-scale people can use power objectively and fairly, and when it is exercised improperly you start seeing bloodshed all done in (sarcasm: righteousness) once one side has thrown the first stone or made one side to feel oppressed and under-represented.


France, England, and America all had the crusades or moral debates between separation of church and state type issues and reached a civil conclusion within law and we matured from there.

The Middle East has not had this "phase" yet or at least they have not concluded it. No amount of Western influence can snap them out or bring peace to the region, it's like letting a 2- year old throw their tantrum and learn for themselves that they wasted time and energy.

The USA out of honor should stay out entirely we've done enough harm to ourselves and to them and we should also pull out monetarily from the region as well.

When they stabilize themselves we should initiate talks to see if they've reached a level of maturity as a country to join the developed world with human rights and all.

In the meantime we should be advancing our own tech and futures with science and a sense of national discipline to conserve the resources we so have instead of wasting them and needing more.

 

Balbus

I'm not 100% sure you have really said where you are on this.
Are you saying that the US has an on-going [and never ending] responsibility to help [because the US is responsible for the situation in Iraq]?
Do you think the US has no choice but to comply with any and all requests for help?
Would you have preferred if the US never removed it's combat troops from Iraq, and the troop withdrawal was a mistake?

Ok, I won't hold you to the US being there indefinitely, but there had to be a time when Iraq had to stand on it's own two feet - with out the presence of the US military on it's soil.

You can argue that there is a continuous narrative, where the US is permanently responsible to help.
But that isn't even how the Iraqi Government feel (as I highlighted).
So why should the US?

Iraq Wants The U.S. Out: Prime Minister Insists All Troops Must Leave

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ruled out the presence of any U.S. troops in Iraq after the end of 2011, saying his new government and the country's security forces were capable of confronting any remaining threats to Iraq's security, sovereignty and unity.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/28/iraq-wants-the-us-out-pri_n_801918.html

I thought I was fairly clear.

If Iraq asks for help from the US (as they now have), then the US can help, but doesn't have to.

 

I didn't think we were friends!

 

Odon

Sorry but I’m still not sure what your argument is

That question was about the whole ‘normal’ thing, not at your general stance over the help question, which I got.

*

What I’m saying is that the US bares a lot of responsibility for what is happening in the middle east and I believe has a responsibility to try and rectify its mistakes.

The problem has been that it seems to make these mistakes because it pursues what it sees as American’s short term interests rather than acting in the best long term interests of the people in whose lives it interferes, to bring about something more mutually favorable to both.

 

monkir

But that is basically what the US did after the soviets were pushed out of Afghanistan, US interests had been served and they basically left the country to its fate, Saudi, Pakistani and Iranian interests filled the vacuum, resulting in a bloody civil war that eventually ended with a ruined, traumatised and bankrupt country with the Taliban extremists in charge.

 

and what happened when we stayed in those countries?