Unified Iraq??? This is a simple question--with the latest skedaddle by the Iraqi army it seems clear that the army simply isn't willing to fight for their country. This begs the...

PeterS

This is a simple question--with the latest skedaddle by the Iraqi army it seems clear that the army simply isn't willing to fight for their country. This begs the question on whether Iraq should have been partitioned to begin with. If each sect had their own portion of the country, clearly they would have something to fight for--the Kurds have already shown this. And while it is probable too late to do anything now I do think it is something a future administration should look at. What do you guys think--other than everything is Obama and the liberals fault--we already know you think that...

Loki Loc: Georgia

PeterS wrote:

This is a simple question--with the latest skedadd... (show quote)

They have been killing each other for thousands of years. Obama basically threw away the gains we had made by leaving prematurely. Our politicians, few of whom are veterans, have a habit of purchasing gains with American blood, then leaving the job half done, so the next batch of politicians can own a drum to beat.

PeterS

Loki wrote:

They have been killing each other for thousands of years. Obama basically threw away the gains we had made by leaving prematurely. Our politicians, few of whom are veterans, have a habit of purchasing gains with American blood, then leaving the job half done, so the next batch of politicians can own a drum to beat.

What gains had we made? Anyone who just throws down their guns doesn't want to fight. Are you saying that until Obama came along the Iraqis were willing to fight for their country. We know the Kurds are willing to fight but they essentially have their own state--so far neither the Sunnis or the Shiites have shown the same whereas if they were fighting for their own state they just might. If we have to be continually be fighting one faction or another for them then there will never be peace in the middle east. The only way for that to happen is if people are willing to actually stand up and fight for it. So far only radical muslims and the Kurds have show the willingness to do so, is this not correct???

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

Loki wrote:

They have been killing each other for thousands of years. Obama basically threw away the gains we had made by leaving prematurely. Our politicians, few of whom are veterans, have a habit of purchasing gains with American blood, then leaving the job half done, so the next batch of politicians can own a drum to beat.

The sad reality is: we weren't going to accomplish anything there anyway - unless we intended to move all Iraqi's out and repopulate the place. I mean, get real - we can't keep the peace in our OWN urban areas. How the hell did anyone think we could in a whole other country? Wishful thinking and great paper plans - are only good for making manure - and that's if you eat them.

PeterS

lpnmajor wrote:

The sad reality is: we weren't going to accomplish anything there anyway - unless we intended to move all Iraqi's out and repopulate the place. I mean, get real - we can't keep the peace in our OWN urban areas. How the hell did anyone think we could in a whole other country? Wishful thinking and great paper plans - are only good for making manure - and that's if you eat them.

It's really a question of what we think we can accomplish now. Iraq was kept together by an authoritarian dictator so it is very naive to think that liberal democracy is going to work in such a sectarian area. Like I said, Obama isn't going to do anything so it is a question for the next administration. But if permanent peace is whats desired then I think a partitioned country is the only way for it to happen.

Loki Loc: Georgia

PeterS wrote:

It's really a question of what we think we can accomplish now. Iraq was kept together by an authoritarian dictator so it is very naive to think that liberal democracy is going to work in such a sectarian area. Like I said, Obama isn't going to do anything so it is a question for the next administration. But if permanent peace is whats desired then I think a partitioned country is the only way for it to happen.

Iraq was CREATED by partition at the end of WWI. It was originally mostly a British protectorate, I suppose you would call it, called Mesopotamia. Afghanistan is another political creation, this time of the Brits and Russians. We can see how well both have worked. We are well on the way to following the British example of making a mess and leaving the cleanup to someone else.

missinglink Loc: Tralfamadore

This entire region was nomadic for eons until the close of WW I. Western powers, primarily England, set the boarders
Nomads didn't know what boarders were till of then. Many still don't. Tribal associations and instincts run very deep. Trying to
nationalize any of them outside of Iran ( because they are Persians ), Is near impossible. Its easier to herd cats using only ballet moves.

Ah crap. wrote this then read Loki's response. Sorry.
Wasn't stealing. We are in tune on this.

PeterS wrote:

This is a simple question--with the latest skedadd... (show quote)

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

Loki wrote:

Iraq was CREATED by partition at the end of WWI. It was originally mostly a British protectorate, I suppose you would call it, called Mesopotamia. Afghanistan is another political creation, this time of the Brits and Russians. We can see how well both have worked. We are well on the way to following the British example of making a mess and leaving the cleanup to someone else.

Yep, but as usual, our glorious leaders ignore history ( if they're even aware of it ) and allow self aggrandizing bureaucrats do their thinking for them. Our OWN history should have clued them in, if they hadn't been clueless to begin with.

How long has it been since the Korean war? North Korea does as it damn well pleases and we are helpless to stop them, even though we still maintain ( at great expense ) occupation troops at the DMZ. The Vietnam war was a total bust, we have NOTHING positive to show for it, well, other than the HUGE amounts of money made by certain persons/companies ( I'll make this clear; our troops and Marines did NOT lose that war - we and our elected representatives did )

Afghanistan has little positive results to show for the huge sacrifices made there - well, except for the huge amounts of money made by certain person/companies. Iraq has left us with no permanent successes - well, except for the incredible amounts of money made by certain persons/companies.

Huh, I think I see a pattern here. Perhaps we would do better to just transfer huge amounts from the Treasury directly into the bank accounts of certain persons/companies - instead of killing and maiming a bunch of kids - just to hide what's REALLY going on.

Anigav6969

lpnmajor wrote:

Yep, but as usual, our glorious leaders ignore his... (show quote)

Well said ! We have to stop listening to the hawk Politcians...they want perpetual war..I wish we never invaded Iraq in the first place......also, some people seem to forget that Obama ran on ending the war in Iraq...that's part of the reason he was voted in ...he kept his promise..people did not want to continue that war and sacrifice American lives....unfortunately, after invading, it's just become a worse mess than it was before

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

Anigav6969 wrote:

Well said ! We have to stop listening to the hawk Politcians...they want perpetual war..I wish we never invaded Iraq in the first place......also, some people seem to forget that Obama ran on ending the war in Iraq...that's part of the reason he was voted in ...he kept his promise..people did not want to continue that war and sacrifice American lives....unfortunately, after invading, it's just become a worse mess than it was before

It would be hard, if not impossible, to find an example of the US interfering in a foreign country with good results. I don't count our activities during WWII, in which, despite revisionist history - we did NOT fight alone.

In any case, being a "super power" carries responsibilities as well as the ability to act anywhere, anytime. It appears that our illustrious leaders are "power mad", relishing the exercising of the "big stick", without any regard whatsoever of the inherent responsibilities to the rest of the world, such an "exercise" carries.

One must have an intimate knowledge of the cultures and the people of any country one wishes to interfere in. We don't even have a clear grasp of such in our OWN country, much less a foreign one - yet we feel free to introduce our own concepts in areas we have no expertise whatsoever. I call that the "arrogance of power", where the entity with the power, just assumes that everyone and everything will fall into place all on it's own - because they said so.

jelun

PeterS wrote:

What gains had we made? Anyone who just throws dow... (show quote)

That was exactly my thought.
What gains?
We spent billions, made LOTS of money for that branch of Halliburton (no bid, no less) lost many US military personnel and had many more come home with both visible injuries and those we will never see. Then there are the innocent Iraqis we killed and the ill will we built... some gains.

Anigav6969

lpnmajor wrote:

It would be hard, if not impossible, to find an ex... (show quote)

:thumbup: :thumbup:

PeterS

Loki wrote:

Iraq was CREATED by partition at the end of WWI. It was originally mostly a British protectorate, I suppose you would call it, called Mesopotamia. Afghanistan is another political creation, this time of the Brits and Russians. We can see how well both have worked. We are well on the way to following the British example of making a mess and leaving the cleanup to someone else.

Well ISIS has no problem fighting for what they want and in fact it was only a few hundred that sent 30,000 Iraqis heading for the hills so clearly some Muslims will fight for something. And if Iraqis aren't willing to save their own country just exactly what can we do to save it for them?

9th Marines

Loki wrote:

Iraq was CREATED by partition at the end of WWI. It was originally mostly a British protectorate, I suppose you would call it, called Mesopotamia. Afghanistan is another political creation, this time of the Brits and Russians. We can see how well both have worked. We are well on the way to following the British example of making a mess and leaving the cleanup to someone else.

:thumbup: :-D :thumbup: :-D :thumbup: :-D

PeterS

Anigav6969 wrote:

Well said ! We have to stop listening to the hawk Politcians...they want perpetual war..I wish we never invaded Iraq in the first place......also, some people seem to forget that Obama ran on ending the war in Iraq...that's part of the reason he was voted in ...he kept his promise..people did not want to continue that war and sacrifice American lives....unfortunately, after invading, it's just become a worse mess than it was before

The fact remains something is going to have to be done. By supplying the Iraqis we are supplying ISIS simply by the arms the Iraqi army leaves behind every time they engage ISIS. So do we simply walk away--after all we are the one who fucked everything up to begin with. This is why I think something like partitioning it into three different counties is the best solution--at least all three sects will be separated so can stop killing each other. If not that, then what's the solution?