Does the USA have a responsibility to help the Iraqis?

No. These religious Muslims wars have been going on for over 1400 years. We have no business siding with the Sunnis (Saudi Arabia) just because they subsidized the Bush family oil failures. What we need is to stay out of it.

 

Im going to tell you what they need in the middle east. A beer distributor on every corner, corn dogs, french fries, BBQ grill pork ribs< no Muslim joke just eat the shit and enjoy your Allah damned life. Burka free water parks.. Walmarts -Walmarts everywhere from Syria to Iran. Country music from Tim Mcgraw and Toby Keith .. ok maybe not Toby. They need to live and enjoy life. Give them Nascar..

Will Smith :The first step is you have to say that you can.

 

LOL, give 'em the three m's.

Mcdonalds, Micky mouse and Miley Cyrus.

 

Pen

In a way that is my point – responsibility is not being taken for mistakes.

 

Sam

Post 229

The problem of the Shia and Sunni division goes up and down - in the last century it has been exacerbated by the intervention of western great powers (Britain, France, USA).

The drawing of arbitrary lines on maps to create ‘nations’ has had long term effects on places like Syria and Iraq.

The most recent interventions have been driven by US foreign policy – the over throw of the democratically elected government in Iran and supporting the blood regime of the Shah which lead to the Mad Mullahs getting into power. The support for the mujahedeen in Afghanistan that lead to Al Qaeda and the Taliban, the support to Saddam in the Iran/Iraq war and later the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Post 269 - (its long so will not re-post but please take a look)

Post 270

Anyway there was a movement toward secularism in the Middle East but in many places it became the victim of a US ‘anti-communist’ foreign policy. American government seemed to ignore religious fundamentalists (with its sectarian and divisional ideas) while trying to suppress left wingers (with their secular and inclusive views).

 

Sam

Basically the liberal education systems that were growing up in the Middle East in the 40’s 50’s were often secular, scientific, and left leaning even socialist in outlook.

This was disliked by conservative religious types domestically and by US foreign policy makers.

In Iran the US helped the anti-communist Shah suppress left wingers but basically ignored the religious groups, in the opposition vacuum the suppression caused religious opposition groups grow in power and influence. When the revolution came the left wingers were part of it but those the religious factions turned on them and what we got was the Mad Mullah’s in charge.

In Afghanistan the US backed the mainly rural, badly educated, religious conservatives against the mainly urban, educated and often left leaning secularists.

Also the concentration on ‘anti-communism’ in US policy toward the Middle East (and the world) meant they seemed to actually encourage the Saudis in the exportation of Wahhabism an extreme view of Sunni Islam (which gave rise to the Taliban amongst others).

 

To a certain degree. yes. However, I have taken into account the Iraqi government, and a certain reflection of Iraqi opinion, with regards to having a US presence in Iraq (regardless of any so-called 'responsibility').

Obviously you have decided to ignore any feelings with regards to what the Iraqi government has said, and are ignoring how a certain proportion of the Iraqi population feel with regards to US presence in Iraq.
Also, any consequences 'help' might provoke.
Only, seemingly, seeing this from a rather selfish position of thinking that the US has done nothing positive, the US has not been working with the Iraqi population, government and military.
Rather taking the position of a certain section of all societies that the Iraq invasion was a 100% failure, and the only response is to grovel for forgiveness and ask for forgiveness.
Nothing else 'making sense' than taking 100% responsibility and groveling to help at all times.

I said that an 18 year old can take responsibility.

I also gave another narrative than your own.

*snooze*
No, the US has no idea about mistakes it may have made and does not ever naval gaze.
Obviously all of this is a neoconservative land grab to take control of a country and it's resources.
*snooze*

 

Odon

I’m still not sure what your argument is?

You seem to now to be indicating that you think that the invasion and occupation of Iraq had a ‘100%’ positive effect and that to you no mistakes were made, can you clarify you position and explain your thinking.

Did you read 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

*

But does that mean that the parents who brought up the child badly have no responsibility for its actions after it is 18? As I’ve said if parents feel no responsibility, no blame, they never learn from their mistakes and what happened is they bring up their next child in the same bad and abusive manner, with often the same tragic results to the child’s life.

But it didn’t seem to fit the situation and I asked you to put forward your argument – you refused.

Are you again indicating that in your opinion no mistakes were made by the US in relation to Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc?

 

Balbus

Oh, ffs, one minute you say you do, the next you do not.

Please ask about the specifics you feel the need not to understand.

I am bored of having to repeat myself.

'you think that the invasion and occupation of Iraq had a ‘100%’ positive effect and that to you no mistakes were made'

Absolutely not. Where have I mentioned ‘100%’ positive effect ?

Have you read: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...=onepage&q=tony blair my journey 1441&f=false

I don't think I need to repeat myself.

I'm not talking about: Iran, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc

 

No no it doesn't

 

?

 

Back this up. Otherwise it looks like you are just making shit up.

 

Odon

Oh come on man, just because I feel I might understand a bit of your thinking does not mean I then suddenly now how you think on every aspect. I’m not a mind reader.

What I didn’t understand I explained in the next sentence - You seem to now to be indicating that you think that the invasion and occupation of Iraq had a ‘100%’ positive effect and that to you no mistakes were made, can you clarify you position and explain your thinking.

I asked because of your statement about “the Iraq invasion was a 100% failure, and the only response is to grovel for forgiveness and ask for forgiveness”

You seemed to be saying that in your opinion there were no mistakes and so nothing to forgive that it was in your term ‘100%’ positive.

Now you say ‘Absolutely not’ so you are saying that there are things to forgive and if so shouldn’t forgiveness be sort?

It not about repeating but about explaining what you meant reparation what help explanation might.

Then do you understand the bigger picture? Do you know the story of the blind men and the elephant?

Have you read any of the history of these countries? I could recommend you a number of general history books if you wish?

Thing is that it part of public record, it is there in the history, you just need to study it.

 

Odon

A Journey by Tony Blair – yes – on Iraq it’s not that informative, and anyway he really wasn’t calling the shots the neo-cons in Washington were doing that.

So have you read Imperial life in the Emerald City by Rajiv Chandrasekaran?

Anyway here is something I’ve posted before – I was calling for action against Saddam back in the 1980’s when he was being supported by the US (among other western powers) in the Iran-Iraq war (which he started).

That was when he was at his most bloodthirsty and repressive, that was when he was for example gassing [people] it was also the time when he was getting his hand shaken by Donald Rumsfeld.

The thing is if the world had moved against Saddam when he came to power in 1979 with the kind of measures imposed on him after Kuwait then there would probably have been no Iran-Iraq war or Kuwaiti invasion. Instead he got support which kept him in power.

Saddam was always a monster he didn’t suddenly become one when he invaded Kuwait.

Anyway Saddam could have been toppled at the time of the First Gulf War if the US had supported the southern and northern uprisings. Instead they let Saddam re-impose his bloody rule in the south, and only stepped in at the last moment in the north with a no fly zone (which led to the setting up of an autonomous Kurdish regional government). Later a no fly zone was imposed in the south but by then the rebellion had been crushed.

By 2003 Saddam’s power was a shadow of its former self, there were no fly zones one from the 36 parallel northward and one from the 33 parallel southwards.

And his power could have been weakened more by the imposing of more refined sanctions and aiding those opposing his rule.

In my view the worst possible option was invasion and the imposing of foreign rule.

It was a similar story with Afghanistan, misguided involvements or neglect and lost opportunities.

 

Balbus

We shall have to disagree.

I find it very informative. 3-4 chapters are devoted to Iraq: Pre Present and Post. You may disagree with what has been written. However, It has to be more informative than yourself, and many authors that were apposed to the war.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...my journey tony blair resolution 1441&f=false

This really does say a lot with regards to your prejudice.

It reads, to me, as if the UK was asked to legitimise the invasion for the US, rather than the US leading the UK into war.

I do not think so.
Perhaps you think that, because I wasn't talking about the positives and negatives.

It muddies the water. It is not the 'bigger picture' at all.

Yes I do know that story.

Yes I have.

I have a feeling, given your final analysis, I would not gain that much from your recommendations.

Btw, there are questions that you have not answered.

They are the sentences with ? at the end of them.

 

What 'action'?

There is no longer 'foreign rule'.

 

This is the stance of government and industry in general. Everything is fine, nothing to see here.

 

Odon

You’re basically saying you disagree with me, which is fine, but you don’t seem to be putting up any counter arguments other than that you disagree with me.

Can you say which books? I might find them interesting.

Please ask them

Well I’m sorry if you think I’ve missed some but all I can say is say which ones do you think I haven’t answered, and you only need to ask, there really is no need to make sarcastic asides.

UN sanctions, stopping western assistance, it was mainly aimed at trying to stop the very bloody Iran/Iraq war. I’m not against the removal of dictators, but that has to be done in the interests of the people of the country, as I’ve stated the removal of Saddam by the neo-cons seemed more about furthering an agenda of those neo-cons the interest of the Iraqi people seemed secondary at most.

But there was and mistakes were made (you agree that mistakes were made) did the end of the occupation mean those mistakes didn’t happen?

 

I already have.

Just go back and pick up on the sentences I made with ? at the end of them.

Again what 'action' ?

Sanctions? Military action / Invasion?

The answer is: No, there isn't any foreign rule.

 

Odon

Why are you acting so huffy, I mean such petulance doesn’t do your case any good.

*

So you don’t actually know? Is this basically just a cheap shot made to imply i'm being shifty or something?

Thing is if anything you seem to be the one not answering questions - i mean can you tell me which history books you claim to have read above and on which country?

I have and I can’t find what you want me to reply to I mean many of the ones you end in a question mark are rhetorical questions. Stop being silly and just tell me what you want me to answer.

To repeat in the case of Iraq - UN sanctions, stopping western assistance, it was mainly aimed at trying to stop the very bloody Iran/Iraq war. [which was going on at that time]

To repeat in general - I’m not against the removal of dictators, but that has to be done in the interests of the people of the country, as I’ve stated the removal of Saddam by the neo-cons seemed more about furthering an agenda of those neo-cons the interest of the Iraqi people seemed secondary at most.

If it was appropriate it could involve sanctions or military assistance or action?

But that doesn’t answer the question - mistakes were made (you agree that mistakes were made) did the end of the occupation mean those mistakes didn’t happen?